The Open Wound - Racism Is Alive And Well In America

TNT Academy is a private high school located in Stone Mountain, Georgia. The school is a private, non-traditional school founded for home-schoolers and others who have problems in public schools and whom are hoping to get an accredited degree.Unlike some private schools around the country, the black middle class is well represented in the student body because of the school's record of academic success and moderate tuition.

Last Friday, May 8th was the graduation ceremony, and Nancy Gordeuk, the founder and director of the school made the mistake of forgetting about the valedictorian's speech and dismissing the crowd before the speech was given. She then got on the microphone, admitted her mistake and politely asked those leaving the room to return, trying in vain to quiet the crowd so the valedictorian - who was white - could give his speech. When a number of them kept right on walking, she accused them of being rude. Most parents who've attended these type of things would agree with her.It's common courtesy that you don't leave while another parent's kid is onstage. She then said, "look who's leaving, all the black people."

That unfortunate comment was enough to ignite a real firestorm.

Nancy Gordeuk later apologized to the parents via email:

A terrible mistake on my part was part of the graduation ceremony on Friday night. The devil was in the house and came out from my mouth. I deeply apologize for my racist comment and hope that forgiveness in in your hearts.

We all make mistakes and anyone who knows me realizes that I try my hardest to work with the students for them to obtain their goal of a high school diploma. I do not think I have discriminated against any family in the school. I just pray you will realize I am a human and make mistakes just like everyone else does and be willing to forgive and move forward instead of concentrating on the bad of the situation.

To address the incident at the graduation ceremony of May 8. Please keep the facts in perspective. An unknown man at the beginning of a speech decided to walk up to the front of the audience with his tablet, videotaping the audience and the students causing disruption to the audience and disrespect to the ceremony and its participants. When disregarding the request to please sit down, the security was asked to remove the man.At that point, booing of the request commenced.

Frustrated with the prospect of ruining the once-in-a-lifetime ceremony the graduates have worked so hard for, my emotions got the best of me and that is when I blurted out "you people are being so rude to not listen to this speech (valedictorian). It was my fault that we missed the speech in the program.

I sincerely apologize to all the persons in attendance at the ceremony for the actions of the few causing the disturbance and for my emotional, un-called generalization of the black persons in attendance. I deeply apologize for my actions made in the emotional state of trying to let this last student finish his speech.

I take a personal interest in the success of every student that comes through our doors without regard to their race, religion or ethnicity. My main concern for each is to provide them with an education and high school diploma to be able to continue on the pathway toward adulthood to become a successful member of society.

You will find many, many parents of all races, religions and ethnic groups that have been serviced by our school and are very appreciative of our efforts on the behalf of their students. This same group of students had the same support we have given to every other graduating class.

It is very easy to judge someone, however, we all make mistakes, as we are only human.Again, I deeply apologize for my offensive comment in the heat of my emotional state in trying to achieve respect for a student to be able to speak.

End result? She was fired in less than a week by the school's Board of directors after a massive media assault and high profile complaints by the local NAACP.

By the way, here's a link to a live video of what occurred at the graduation and the context in which Nancy Gordeuk's remarks were made. It certainly does seem to bear out her story that a lot of people in the audience were very unruly and disrespectful and that a lot of them just happened to be black, but I'll let you be the judge.

Now let's look at a similar incident in another part of the country.



This is Boston University’s Saida Grundy,the newest professor at the school’s African American Studies department. Dr. Grundy, who received her doctorate at the University of Michigan last year isn't the victim of an unfortunate outburst made in the emotional heat of the moment. She's an outright, loud n' proud racist. On her Twitter account, according to the AP story, she called "white college males" a "problem population" and wrote that "white masculinity is THE problem for America's colleges." But that's the tame stuff. Here are a few more gems from her Twitter account, which she's since made private: I HAD NO IDEA WHITE BALTIMOREANS WERE THIS TERRIBLE. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALL MCNULTY! THIS IS *EXACTLY* LIKE FERGUSON. — lord commander (@saigrundy) April 29, 2015

meme of the day: "white people be like #ALLSTORESMATTER" https://t.co/3m5wGupgFF

— lord commander (@saigrundy) April 29, 2015

in other words, deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing.

— lord commander (@saigrundy) April 22, 2015

in fact, I suggest we ban entirely the inherently racist term "pioneers." your ancestors were land-thieves. nothing more.

— lord commander (@saigrundy) April 19, 2015

every MLK week i commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. and every year i find it nearly impossible.

— lord commander (@saigrundy) January 15, 2015

 Oh, and Surprise! She hates Jews too:

Now these remarks and a few others I refuse to soil my site with were not only issued recently in Twitter's public forum for all to see, but were republished online at SoCawlege.com and elsewhere.

These aren't dredged up from the past either, nor are they occasional outbursts. Dr. Grundy is consumed with her racist sentiments and fires off remarks like this constantly.

Boston University harshly condemned these racist remarks. The College President, Robert Brown said in an open letter that there was no place for racism at the University and that Dr. Grundy would not be teaching classes there.

Yes, of course I'm kidding. Here's what actually happened.

When Dr. Grundy's racist statements came to light publicly, she issued, not an apology but a statement: "I regret that my personal passion about issues surrounding these events we now witness with regularity in our nation led me to speak about them indelicately."

”I deprived them of the nuance and complexity that such subjects always deserve."

AKA 'I'm sorry if you were offended.'

The university 'distanced itself' at first,with a spokesperson saying the university was "offended" by Grundy's statements. Other critics called her comments offensive and inappropriate for a professor at a major publicly funded university.

That brought out the racial solidarity cavalry. They started a hashtag #IStandWithSaida and launched an online petition supporting her. Part of the petition read, "Racism extends to virtually every institution in American society - including higher education. Calling Professor Grundy's tweets racist minimizes the very real effects of racism for people of color in the United States."

AKA 'Racism is fine if a person of color does it, just because.

President Brown immediately caved in, (emphasis mine):

President Robert Brown acknowledged Grundy's right to hold and express her opinions but said her remarks unfairly "typecast" certain groups of people. He stopped short, though, of acknowledging the comments were directed almost exclusively at whites. "I do not say this lightly or without a great deal of consultation and soul-searching," Brown's letter reads. "I understand there is a broader context to Dr. Grundy's tweets and that, as a scholar, she has the right to pursue her research, formulate her views, and challenge the rest of us to think differently about race relations. But we also must recognize that words have power and the words in her Twitter feed were powerful in the way they stereotyped and condemned other people."

Yes, I get his point, we all need to be challenged to be more accepting of racism, as long as it's coming from a black person. This, at the university Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. got his doctorate at.

But I will say I'm certainly glad to hear that President Brown supports free speech and controversial views so passionately. So when are Pam Geller, Rush Limbaugh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali scheduled to speak at Boston University? How about Ann Coulter or maybe even Michelle Malkin?

Ri-ight, the fifth of Never.

Do I need to add that Dr. Saida Grundy wasn't fired? She reports for work July 1st.

So here we have two situations, where people involved in academia said inappropriate things.

Maybe Nancy Gordeuk's remarks were more bigoted than Saida Grundy's? Well, I don't know, but it seems to me like 'Look all the black people are leaving' isn't nearly as bad as some of the stuff Dr. Grundy wrote. Especially since Gordeuk's remark was a one time outburst under pressure while Saida Grundy's were premeditated and continuous. Look again at this video. In Georgia, we have a white educator who helped put together a school that arguably benefits children of color disproportionally upset at what was obvious disrespect for both the graduation ceremony and the valedictorian, whom happened to be white, and made an unfortunate generalization based on what she felt she saw happening in that room.

Imagine if the valedictorian was black instead of white and an audience of predominantly white people had disrupted the graduation and walked out on him. Imagine if Nancy Gordeuk was black and said, 'look all the white folks are leaving.' Imagine if instead of what she sent out, she had used Saida Grundy's 'apology' and said she regretted her remarks, but that she spoke out of passion at apparently seeing one of her students disrespected because of his race.

Does anyone remotely think Nancy Gordeuk would have been fired?

If Dr. Saida Grundy was white and the racist tweets on her Twitter account were directed at blacks, does anyone seriously think she wouldn't have been summarily fired? Would the President of Boston College be bloviating about Saida Grundy being a 'scholar' with legitimate views that 'challenge the rest of us to think differently about race relations?'

We are indeed cowards when it comes to race. And racism continues in America because people like Dr. Saida Grundy continue to promulgate it and too many people continue to excuse and tolerate it, provided it comes from a so-called 'person of color.'

This is what keeps racism alive and well in America. It's because its practitioners and their enablers like President Brown whom practice the bigotry of low expectations. Both are racist to the core. And as long as that remains true, it will continue to be America's open wound.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people whom have a vested interest in keeping it that way.

Dr. King would be appalled and ashamed.


UPDATE: Dr. Saida Grundy has surfaced again with racist remarks directed at a white rape victim. 
Quod Erat Demonstradum...when you give racist behavior a pass, it just emboldens racists in further outrages.

Cornell Dean: 'Why Yes, ISIS Is Welcome To Train Jihadis On Campus!'

James O'Keefe strikes again.Somewhere in heaven, Andrew Breitbart is smiling.

O'Keefe sent an operative with the alias 'Ali' to visit Cornell’s assistant dean for students, Joseph Scaffido, who agreed to inviting an ISIS “freedom fighter’’ to conduct a “training camp” for students which Scaffido compared to 'running a sports camp.

“You would be allowed to do something like that. It’s just like bringing in a coach, to do a training, a sports trainer or something,”

He also endorsed Cornell sponsoring a pro-“Islamic State Iraq and Syria” group on campus, which would provide material support for terrorists (a felony)in the form of “care packages, whether it be food, water, electronics.”

How about supporting Hamas?

No problem at all, Scaffido said. Apparently he's fine with genocide against Jews as well.

“The university is not going to look at different groups and say, ‘You’re not allowed to support that group because we don’t believe them’ or something like that. I think it’s just the opposite. I think the university wants the entire community to understand what’s going on in all parts of the world,” Scaffido said.

I actually would love to see Mr. Scaffido meet up with some of those 'sports coaches' from Islamic State. He obviously doesn't need his head anyway.

Cornell was shocked and embarrassed by this, said that in no way does the university support these views and that Joseph Scaffido was going to be fired for potentially involving the university in a felony violation of federal law.

Oh, wait...none of the above! In response to inquiries from the New York Post, here's what Cornell had to say:


“Cornell fully supports the free exchange of ideas and does not review or control the political ideology of our students. We do not, of course, tolerate unlawful advocacy of violence, and the comment about training by ISIS freedom fighters does not reflect university policy,” said Joel Malina, Cornell’s vice president for university relations.

It would be quite interesting to see what other groups Mr. Scaffido has been assisting to get funds from the university and use it's facilities, now wouldn't it? And even more fascinating to see which ones he's deliberately impeded and discouraged. 'Free exchange of ideas' obviously includes Hamas, the Taliban, Islamic State, and Hezbollah on the menu...can I get fries with that?

These are the people who are mind raping your sons and daughters.

A fish rots from the head. So does a nation.

Thought Crime! College President Begs For Forgiveness After Saying 'All Lives Matter'

 

Smith college president Kathleen McCartney has learned an important lesson. It's not enough to just be down for the struggle. You must also grovel, as the price for your white privilege.

Smith College has long been known as an outpost of progressive Left wing ideology, and there's no doubt that President McCartney embodies this, holding the position she does. But apparently she made a major error in communicating the dialectic, if you take my meaning.

She sent an e-mail to her entire student body intending to express solidarity with the #Ferguson and Eric Garner protestors. Not that she was exactly going to go and trash business and loot or anything, but she wanted them to know she felt their pain, so to speak. And as she expressed it, “We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” as she made clear she was strongly behind the rioting protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.”

Whoopsie!

 

She was literally bombarded by outraged cries of ra-a-aacism from the intended recipients for apparently changing the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' to 'all lives matter.'

She was accused of asserting her white privilege for inferring  that  whites were entitled  to share in the sacred rites of black victimology. How dare she!

The Daily Hampshire Gazette, which first covered the story, quoted one Smith sophomore, Cecelia Lim, as saying, “it felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives.”

Now, Cecilia is Chinese, but she's obviously has a more  direct knowledge of black lives, right? Or at least a better grasp of her place in the universe of victimology. 'Shared rage?'  Nah, we own that, whitey. Although we do accept cash, checks and credit cards.

Now, for some educators, this could have been a teachable moment. President McCartney could have risen to the occasion. She could have explained to these self-involved twits that all lives do matter, that no group has a monopoly on morality and to assume so is just another pernicious form of racism. She could have told them that justice and the struggle for justice belong to everyone or it belongs to no one.

 But of course, President  McCartney didn't do that. She tearfully apologized for her racism and white privilege with all the zeal of an accused bourgeoisie  undergoing a 'self-criticism' trial/beat down  by Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. She claimed she had no idea, no idea at all that the phrase 'all lives matter' would be seen as a co-opting of 'black lives matter' and a dead giveaway of her unconscious racism.And of course she said that  she was 'committed to working as a white ally, to learning from the lived experiences of people of color, and to acknowledging mistakes.'

It appears her students aren't the only ones whom need educating. Pity about that.

The Madison White Privilege Conference - Taxpayer Funded Fascism

 


Madison, Wisconsin is a college town that can basically be described a Berkeley North, with neither the advanced science department or the surrounding crime ridden squalor of its California cousin.

That of course doesn't stop them from indulging in Far Left agitprop, especially at taxpayer expense.

At the end of last March, the 15th annual National White Privilege Conference took place, funded and sponsored in part by hotel tax revenues, the University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department Of Public Instruction(DPI) and the City of Madison and in part by attendees, who paid $400 to attend.

A good time was had by all, as the White Debbils who of course are responsible for everything were excoriated.

It hosted more than 100 breakout sessions including: Stories from the frontlines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher; Abolishing Academic Profiling: White Privilege and White Supremacy in Our Schools; Against the Tea Party Movement; If You Build It, They Will Come: Developing a Pre K-12 Curricular Scope and Sequence for Whiteness and Anti-Racisim; Creating Economically and Racially Just Schools: An Equity Literacy Approach ( minority test scores are only bad because the oppressive White oriented educations system doesn't make enough allowances for their particular culture, you see) and a whole host of other goodies.

A good example of what the attendees were subjected to can be seen in the remarks of Kim Radersma, a former high school English teacher and self-styled activist, who hosted the session titled, “Stories from the front lines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher.”

Radersma told her group that she taught a lower-level English class at a public high school and her students were exclusively 'people of color'. But the Advanced Placement course in her school was almost all white and Asian students.

The reason? Why racism of course! It was the institutionalized racist structure of education and her white privilege was causing the racial achievement gap.

"I came to higher ed to study. What is this problem that I'm scared of? I don't know what to do. My principal is scared of this. Where do I point? Who's at fault? My white body is at fault," she said. "My racial identity, as a white person who believes that I am somehow better or more deserving, is the problem. The white supremacy, the structure is the problem."

She also told her group that teaching was a purely political act, and neutral people should “get the f*ck out of education.”

“Teaching is a political act, and you can’t choose to be neutral,” said Radersma. “You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it. And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn.”

And of course, any teachers who think their job is to actually educate people rather than to parrot her agenda and confront the system are racists promoting white supremacy.

Radersma also compared white people fighting oppression to alcoholics trying to keep from drinking..because of course, all white people are racist.

“Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic,” she said. “I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor. I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply embedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way.”

 Progressives Today posted the first of a four-part video series highlighting some of the craziness that came out of the conference.
Here are just some of the highlights, according to Progressives Today:

• White people were invented in 1681.
• Racism was invented in Colonial America by White Capitalists as a tool to divide labor and keep the working class in their place.
• Individualism is a White construct.
• Islamic societies have historically protected Jews from White Christians.

Needless to say, the press was not exactly welcome.

The idea here, of course is to program future educators to indoctrinate our children..to be political activists paid by your tax dollars, as Kim Radersma would certainly agree.

This goes far beyond just a simple gathering of progressive fascists.And it's no ho ho joke, not in the least.

BDS Fail At Cornell: Attempted Stealth Anti-Israel Resolution Voted Down

The 'anti-Zioniusts' at Cornell thought they had a pretty clever ace up their sleeves. Terrorist groupies Students For Justice in Palestine put together a Divestment Resolution and slyly inserted it into the calender of the Student Assembly for a vote at 4:30 Pm local time, when many of Cornell's Jewish students would be expected to be leaving campus to celebrate the Passover holidays with their families.

If the initial Resolution passed, it would mean that the substantive vote would take place the following Thursday, in the middle of the Passover holidays.

Unfortunately for SJP, the pro-Israel students rallied with surprising speed, undoubtedly aided by Professor A. Jacobson, a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School who outed this outrageous attempt at stealth BDS and who also broke the story on his fine blog, Le.gal. In.sur.rect.ion.

The end result? The Cornell University student government voted as follows: 15 in favor of indefinitely tabling the Resolution, eight against tabling the Resolution and one abstention.

My pal Lori Lowenthal Marcus has the story in the Jewish Press:

“I’m very proud of the way the pro-Israel students were able to mobilize so quickly. Now they all can enjoy their Passover holiday,” Jacobson told The Jewish Press by email.{...}

Because the Passover holiday begins on Monday, most Jewish students ordinarily would leave for home during the day on Thursday. If the initial Resolution passed, it would mean that the substantive vote would take place the following Thursday, smack in the middle of the Passover holiday.

That cheap and dirty strategic trick, as Jacobson noted in his blog post describing it, was “reminiscent of the exploitation of the Yom Kippur Jewish holiday in 1973 to launch an attack on Israel.”

And just as effective. They lost. By a lot.

Yes, they did.

Two Scenes From The War On Campus Against Men

Think stories about the war against males, particularly but not exclusively on campus are exaggerated? Here are a couple of examples about how it works in real life.

Stephen Zingarelli is a former student at Kenyon college, an elite Liberal arts school in Ohio. And he's suing them.

His story is a good example of what young men in college face today, courtesy of Professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit :

Stephen Zingarelli, a former Kenyon student who was acquitted last June of rape and gross sexual imposition, filed a lawsuit on Thursday, Dec. 5 in Knox County’s Court of Common Pleas against Kenyon College, the student who accused him of rape and a student Sexual Misconduct Advisor (SMA). The suit was first reported by the Mount Vernon News yesterday.

In the suit, which contains 14 individual counts, Zingarelli accuses Kenyon of breach of contract and negligence in the training and supervision of SMAs. The suit also accuses Kenyon of violating Title IX of the Education Acts Amendment of 1972 by discriminating against him based on his sex.

Zingarelli also alleges that his student accuser subjected him to malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional duress and defamation.

In the suit, Zingarelli additionally claims his accuser destroyed evidence relevant to the case, and alleges that those actions were taken “with the aid and encouragement of [the sexual misconduct advisor], and at her direction.”

All three defendants are accused of civil conspiracy to damage Zingarelli in the suit, which was independently obtained and confirmed by the Collegian.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the College as well as injunctive relief. The suit also seeks damages and attorneys fees from the two student defendants.

Although the suit repeatedly seeks damages “yet to be determined,” it cites $175,000 in paid Kenyon tuition, counseling fees in excess of $500, attorney’s fees in excess of $15,000 and “lost opportunities and income caused by delay in graduating and entering the professional world.”

Note that even though he was acquitted of all charges, the woman who filed a false accusation against him and the student advisers who aided and abetted her aren't named.

So how does something like this happen? Our next exhibit, courtesy of James Taranto reveals how. Aside from gender bias, the Obama Administration has literally blackmailed universities into setting up Kangeroo courts designed to convict young men accused of sexual misconduct not using the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" to establish guilt but the far more lax preponderance of the evidence".


Joshua Strange will never forget the girl he met in May 2011.

Both were underclassmen at Alabama's Auburn University when a common acquaintance introduced them. "We instantly became attached at the hip and did everything together," she recalled six months later. "I rather quickly moved into his place. . . . Everything was great until pretty much June 29."

That night, an intimate encounter in Mr. Strange's bed went wrong. She called police, who detained him for questioning. She said she had awakened to find him forcing himself on her; he said the sexual activity was consensual and initiated by her. There was no dispute as to the physical acts involved.

The accuser did not press charges that night. In fact, before sunrise she returned to his apartment, and the couple agreed to continue dating. When I asked him why in a recent phone interview, he told me: "I cared about her."

But the relationship soon disintegrated. Phone records show their communications ended in mid-August. In early September he was arrested again after she told police that two days earlier he had confronted her in a public place and struck her. He flatly denied it, saying he was 15 miles away at the time. This time she did press charges, for misdemeanor simple assault as well as for felony forcible sodomy in the June 29 incident.

Mr. Strange was cleared on both counts. On Feb. 3, 2012, a grand jury handed up a "no bill" indictment on the sodomy charge, meaning the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for prosecution. On May 24, when the simple-assault case went to trial, the accuser didn't show up. "I don't have a witness to go forward with, your honor," said city attorney Michael Short. Case dismissed.

So Mr. Strange got his day in court and was treated fairly. But he had already been punished for the unproven crimes. Auburn expelled him after a campus tribunal found him "responsible" for committing the catchall offense of "sexual assault and/or sexual harassment." A letter from Melvin Owens, head of the campus police, explained that expulsion is a life sentence. If Mr. Strange ever sets foot on Auburn property, he will be "arrested for Criminal Trespass Third," Mr. Owens warned.

Joshua Strange, now 23, is a civilian casualty in the Obama administration's war on men. In an April 2011 directive, Russlyn Ali, then assistant education secretary for civil rights, threatened to withhold federal money from any educational institution that failed to take a hard enough line against sexual misconduct to ensure "that all students feel safe in their school." The result was to leave accused students more vulnerable to false charges and unfair procedures. The prospect of losing federal funds has left university administrators "crippled by panic," Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told me. "The incentives are pointing toward findings of guilt, not accurate findings."

The full story is here.

So what happens to young men accused in this fashion, even if the charges are unproven and he's acquitted?

Well, for starters they normally have difficulty in completing their education, because few universities want to admit someone 'convicted' by a campus tribunal of sexual assault or sexual harassment, even if the young man was acquitted in a court of law. They don't want to risk a lawsuit for negligence just in case something happens. That especially applies to any graduate studies.

If he does manage to find a university or college to admit him, the stigma of what happened is always present. Any friendship or relationship he might have with a young woman he meets on campus is colored by the reminder of what happened, so his social life is stigmatized.

And when he graduates and starts looking for a job, this follows him around and has to be explained each time..."I see you were expelled..". There are a lot of firms that will find it more expedient simply not to hire him.Why take a chance?

This has backfired, by the way, on a lot of perfectly innocent young women whom would never consider filing false charges for sexual assault. Two places many women used to meet their prospective spouses were at college or at the workplace. Given the climate today and the implicit threat men face of being demonized and thrown out of college or losing their jobs over false accusations like the two young men above experienced, a lot of savvy young men simply avoid getting involved with young women at work or who go to the same university. Which makes it a lot harder for these women to find suitable dates and partners, something a lot of young women complain about these days, with their remarks usually prefaced by a plaintive 'there's nobody out there.'

“What Was Auschwitz?” “I Don’t Know…”

"I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and every shred of human decency.Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources.I am certain, however that I never at any time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of that camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that 'the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.' {...}

I not only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt." -Dwight D. Eisenhower, from "Crusade In Europe" , his personal memoir of WWII.

General Eisenhower realized that the historical lesson of the Holocaust was too important to be forgotten and thus perhaps repeated in a different time and place. So he not only saw to it that journalists and photographers were given access to the camps, he personally ordered that they be filmed and photographed by the Army's own personnel and eyewitness accounts documented.

He certainly can't be blamed for it, but apparently his efforts were mostly in vain.

The above video shows author Rhonda Fink-Whitman interviewing Pennsylvania public school graduates currently enrolled at four different Pennsylvania universities to see what they know about the Holocaust, WWII, and Genocide in general.

Their replies will shock and depress you,but they explain a lot.

He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

(H/T, The Anchoress)

School Field Trip To Mosque Features Islamic Readings, Qu'rans For Students

Tennessee is one of the main areas targeted by Islamists for penetration. A number of foreign funded mega Mosques have been built that are far larger than needed to serve the existing Muslim population, and the Obama Department of Justice has been especially aggressive in threatening citizen's groups and local municipalities when they attempt to exercise their existing zoning laws to try and prevent it.

As reported by FOX News Radio’s Todd Starnes, Hendersonville High School recently sent its students of a field trip to a mosque as part of a three-week course on world religions. The students got a fairly slated representation of the Religion of Peace. They were given punch and cookies at the mosque and listened to readings from the Qur'an. They were also offered copies of the Qur'an to take home – which some took and others declined.

Islam defines this as dawa...a part of jihad that involves propagandizing for Islam among the infidels to make political inroads in non-Muslim countries.

While a trip was also taken to a Hindu Temple, no trips were offered to Christian churches, Buddhist temples or Jewish synagogues.

Parents were particularly outraged at this, asking why the school would tour only a mosque but not any of the other religions.

“If you can’t go to all five, why are you going to any?” parent Mike Conner inquired. “We sent the principal an email and voiced our concerns. She sent back a reply and told us they could not afford to go to all five.”

The reason the mosque got the nod becomes obvious as you find out that students who chose not to participate in the field trip were instructed to write a paper comparing and contrasting the Christian, Hindu and Islamic faiths.

The assignment included a worksheet that was visibly biased towards Islam, stating that Muslims treated their conquered people better than the United States treated minorities.

“If we were to compare the attitude of the Muslim rulers towards the minorities living under their rule during the nineteenth century – with the attitude of the Europeans and the Americans towards their minorities, I dare to say that the record of the Muslims would be better,” the author wrote.

I guess the author never talked to any Armenians, Jews, Greeks or Balkan peoples.

The worksheet further stated that the “Prophet of Islam was prepared to live in peace with the followers of other monotheistic religions,” and also said “Muslims in the Middle East and Asian conquered lands of other peoples but they did not impose their religion over them.”

Conner told Fox News his daughter declined to complete what she considered to be an unfair and unbalanced assignment.

“Because of a surplus in information on Muhammed, and a lack of complete and thorough information on Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ, there is not enough true facts to properly complete a comparison and contrasting paper,” Jessica wrote on her paper.

Her parents warned her that she might be punished by her teachers for standing up for her beliefs – and she was. Jessica received a ‘zero’ for the assignment.

Conner and his wife met with school officials who refused to change their daughter’s grade or give her an assignment that was more balanced.

“They told us we were being hostile towards Islam,” Conner said. “It was a very confrontational meeting. Their attitude was, ‘I can’t believe you would question our motives with your children.’”

Conner said he hopes the school board will take action against the teachers.

“Someone needs to be held accountable,” he said. “They are our children – not theirs.”

The Sumner County School District, once this little exercise in dawa was outed has said that the district schools will no longer include visits to religious venues. But the teachers involved in this and the school principal will remain in place.

If this is what's going on in a relatively conservative area like Tennessee, can you imagine what's going on in places like California, Massachusetts and Connecticut?



Hartford, CT middle school kids visiting local  mosque in 2012, learning tenets of Islam

MSU English Professor 'Relieved Of Duty' After Vile Anti-Republican Classroom Rant

Professor William Penn at Michigan State University is being paid by the taxpayers to teach creative writing. Instead of doing that, what he's actually engaged in is political indoctrination, creating a hostile learning environment for anyone who doesn't agree with his far left views and working out on students who aren't in a position to fight back because their grades depend on him.

He's hardly the only one that does this - in fact, it's widespread. But unfortunately, Professor Penn was caught doing this on video by a student and then posted online by Campus Reform, which brought it to the attention of the university:

And then Professor William Penn was relieved of duty and his classes assigned to others, the university announced Thursday.

“The dean of the College of Arts and Letters and a representative from the provost’s office met with Penn, who acknowledged that some of his comments were inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive and may have negatively affected the learning environment,” the university said in a release.

The Michigan Republican Party called the remarks political intimidation against students.

“This is exactly why we are engaging students on college campuses across the state; young conservatives should not feel isolated or outcast simply because they are Republicans,” Michigan Republican Party Chairman Bobby Schostak said about the incident. “This is a public institution, funded by taxpayers, and this type of bullying is inexcusable.

” … By bringing his personal views into the classroom, Penn has directly isolated and threatened young Republicans into silence. His use of political intimidation is shameful and should not be tolerated.”

In an interview, Mitch Lyons one of two Republicans on the MSU board was asked if he though Penn should be fired.

“I’m certainly not opposed to second chances,” Lyons said. “But I think there needs to be an apology, you know. I think that there needs to be some monitoring going forward.”

Penn's response? Not what could remotely be called an apology.

“If you’re a Republican, forgive me,” Penn said. “If your parents are Republicans, forgive me. They won’t and I don’t care.”

Keep in mind that this was obviously not the only occasion Penn engaged in this kind of behavior. This time, after one of his students had enough of being bullied, he was simply caught at it. There are a lot of others who haven't been, or whom are protected by tenure or a university administration that winks at this sort of thing...provided it comes from the left side of the spectrum.

Penn has no business teaching and should be fired with cause, forthwith.

Would People Sign A Petition to Legalize Abortion On Demand After Birth?

Of course they would, especially on one of America's college campuses...like George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. After all, if President Obama supports exactly the same kind of infanticide...


Reporter Dan Joseph says he got 14 signatures on a petition after one hour. “That is a lot for the summer because there aren’t as many people on campus,” he says in the video. I imagine he could have done even better in California, New York or Massachusetts.

And no, he didn't represent what the petition was about either. He explained that to the students he asked to sign that it was demanding lawmakers legalize “fourth trimester” abortions to “ send a message to our lawmakers that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and babies” even “after their pregnancies.”.

“If you don’t know what fourth trimester is, it’s after the baby is already born.” Joseph added.

You have to wonder what these students are being taught.

Janet Napolitano To Resign As Head Of DHS

 

Yes, Big Sis is getting out of DC while the getting is good. With things like Fast and Furious, the NSA scandal, the AP scandal and numerous others brewing around the Obama Administration, she's decided it might be smarter to get out of Dodge for awhile.

And where's she headed? Where do all failed political figures from Democrat administrations go? If not to the media, than to academia.

Big Sis has been named to be the next president of the 10 campus University of California system, at three times the salary she now makes.

Why her? Oh, the L.A. Times article provides a few perhaps unintended hints:

UC officials believe that her Cabinet experiences –- which include helping to lead responses to hurricanes and tornadoes and overseeing some anti-terrorism measures -- will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas. [...}

Robert Powell, the chairman of UC’s system-wide faculty Senate and who consulted on the UC search, said Napolitano stood out among the more than 300 potential candidates. She “has demonstrated an outstanding ability to deal with complex organizations under demanding circumstances,” he said.

Acknowledging that she will be a departure from UC’s traditions of having a president with strong records in campus administration or academic research, he stressed that her political skills will be important. “When she goes to Sacramento, clearly the conversations will be on a different plane,” he said.

Yes, it's about the Federal and State benjamins.

Interestingly enough, a Times poll at the link showed that 77% of the locals think she's a bad choice to head the UC system, as of 9 AM PST this morning.

While it will certainly be refreshing to be rid of her, rest assured that President Obama will pick someone even worse to fill her slot.

Expat Israeli Academics Find Out Being 'Anti-Zionist' Doesn't Overcome Being Jews

 

If you're an Israeli Left wing academic from say, Tel Aviv University who loudly spouts pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist' views, you might expect to be welcomed with open arms by academic circles in the EU. especially since people are getting a lot less tolerant of that kind of suicidal sedition in Israel at taxpayer expense.

Unfortunately, as this piece from Ha'aretz reveals, it just ain't so.

Here's what happen when Left-wing Israeli academics with anti-Israel views pursue academic careers abroad, as related by one of them:

Left-wing Israeli academics have in the past few years faced a great challenge. Threatened with censorship, prosecution and ostracism in their home universities, they have been subtly forced to hold their tongues when it comes to publicly expressing their political opinions. In 2009, Neve Gordon nearly lost his job as a politics professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev after writing an op-ed arguing that Israel has become an apartheid state that can only be saved by an international boycott. One year later, in 2010, world-renowned art theorist Ariella Azoulay was denied tenure by Bar-Ilan University apparently due to her pro-Palestinian political views. These incidents send Israeli academics a clear message: tolerance of critical opinions is running out.

It is for exactly this reason that many Israelis pursue academic careers abroad. But in the international academic community, they often find that no matter how far left or pro-peace they are, their “Israeliness” remains an obstacle. Universities and scholars that explicitly support boycotting Israeli academic institutions are still relatively rare, but it seems that to avoid undesirable political rows, many universities choose not to collaborate with their Israeli counterparts or offer scholarships to Israeli students. In many cases, Israelis looking to participate in student-exchange programs or pay for postgraduate studies in Europe, and especially the United Kingdom, are unable to find any opportunities. When it comes to funding, they tend to discover Israel is neither part of the Middle East nor of Europe. Israelis are usually not entitled to apply for the scholarships available to other foreign students.

While their Palestinian fellows enjoy the political and financial support of active pro-Palestinian university societies and generous scholarships designed specifically for them, the implicit message to Israelis is often: “It doesn’t really matter what you say or think, because we simply don’t want to hear from you.” For example, British Member of Parliament George Galloway walked out a debate at Oxford University three months ago simply because he learned that his student opponent was an Israeli citizen. The fact that the student was about to explain the necessity of an agreement recognizing both Israel and a Palestinian state did not matter.

You see, it doesn't really pay to sell out and try to betray your own people.There's always that inconvenient accident of birth. And the  EU pretty much already has its small quota of self-hating Jews filled whom they can parade as a mask for their anti-semitism.

Today's 'anti-Zionist' Jews just arrived too late for the goodies, and they're pretty much neither wanted or needed anymore. Either in Israel or abroad.

(h/t Fresno Zionism)

'Think Progress' Lefty Female Blogger Cited By Police For Making Phony Rape Threat To Herself

Meg Lanker-Simons is a well known paid shill for the Soros-funded Think Progress,  as a radio host at the University of Wyoming (UW) and on her own blog, Cognitive Dissonance (no link, I don't want to give her traffic).

Apparently that wasn't enough attention for her, so she decided to manufacture some more by putting up a phony rape threat on a college “crush” Facebook page earlier this week and pretending it came from a 'conservative' :

 


"“I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it,” it read.  “I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch.”

Needless to say, Ms. Lanker-Simons got a lot of mileage out of this on her usual outlets.

Unfortunately for her, she took it way too far.

The University of Wyoming Police Department investigated, as they should have. And they ended up issuing a citation to Lanker-Simons for “interference” for “false statements she made to the UW Police Department,” according to a UW statement referred to by Laramie Boomerang Online.

"Subject admitted to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then lied about not doing it," according to the citation.

The University of Wyoming also said that the police had "obtained substantial evidence verifying that the offending Facebook post came from Lanker-Simons' computer, while the computer was in her possession.”

Below is a picture of Ms. Lanker-Simons :



This is no joke..if Lanker-Simons wasn't fairly stupid and had actually been able to frame someone credible, this could have had life changing consequences for one of her 'enemies'.

If a male student was even suspected of making a threat of this kind, even if there was no conclusive proof, he would have been summarily expelled, with little chance of ever getting into another university in the future.

Even worse, it might affect how seriously campus police investigate  a future rape threat and lead to another innocent woman being attacked.

Lanker-Simons got off with a citation. She should have been tossed out of the university on her ample derrière.

According to her Facebook page, Lanker-Simons is a member of the University of Wyoming Gender & Women's Studies group (of course!) as well as the school’s chapter of The Nonviolent Communist.

To give you an idea of how serious she is about that whole 'non-violence' thing, she was one of the plaintiffs in a successful 2010 lawsuit against the University of Wyoming when they rescinded an invitation to have domestic terrorist Bill Ayers speak on campus.

Of course, being a Leftist means never having to say you're sorry. So naturally, since she was outed as as an attention seeking liar, her supporters have put together a Facebook page entitled “Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent.”

"“Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified and deserves not to be held accountable for her accusations we stand behind you sister”

You see, even if there wasn't an actual rape threat by an Evil Conservative.you know, there should have been. Just because, you know.

(h/t Campus Reform)

Two Big Victories For School Choice

There have been two recent major  victories at the state level for school choice that deserve to be shared.

Both involved Choice Scholarship Programs ( CSP) which provide vouchers to low-income and middle-income families to help pay the cost of private schools and get children out of the public school systems.

In Indiana, the state supreme court ruled unanimously in Meredith v. Pence that the CSP vouchers were constitutional, defeating a huge lawsuit and lobbying campaign by the teacher's union and the ACLU.

The decision affects 600,000 children, who will now be free to flee dysfunctional public schools for quality private education:

The union's lawsuit hinged on two legal points. First, constitutional provisions requiring that states provide a “general and uniform” system of public education and second, provisions forbidding state support of religion.

Or to put it more plainly, 'we'll be in charge of the mindrape and indoctrination, thanks. Not you Jesus freaks or racist Tea Party types.'

The court did not agree:

With regard to requiring a uniform system of public education, Gall goes on to write that the court “showed that the duty to provide a ‘general and uniform’ system of public schools is not violated when a state provides educational options above and beyond the system.”

As for the provision prohibiting state support of religion, the court noted that:

any benefit to program-eligible schools, religious or non-religious, derives from the private, independent choice of the parents of program-eligible students, not the decree of the state, and is thus ancillary and incidental to the benefit conferred on these families.

The Indiana legislature is now talking about expanding the program to serve even more students.

In Colorado, there was a victory that may even be more far reaching.

The Appeals Court overturned an injunction on the Douglas County CSP program issued by a Left wing judge in response to a suit by the teacher's unions, ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and similar actors.

They claimed that the CSP program violated, among other things, the establishment clause in the Colorado constitution. Their argument was that by subsidizing student to attend religious schools, the state was promoting and subsidizing particular faiths. And since Secular Leftism was already covered by the public schools it wasn't among them.

The appellate court decided to reason this out in an interesting way:

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ establishment clause claims, the appellate court applied the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2008). In this decision, penned by then-Judge Michael McConnell, the Tenth Circuit held that it violated the First Amendment to provide financial aid to students attending sectarian institutions but not to students attending “pervasively sectarian” institutions. As the Tenth Circuit noted, “inquiring into the pervasiveness or intensity of… belief” of religious institutions receiving funding is a form of anti-religious discrimination.

In the case challenging the CSP, the Colorado appeals court applied the same logic, holding that:

the inquiry in which the district court engaged—into the degree to which religious tenets and beliefs are included in participating private schools’ educational programs—is no longer constitutionally permissible. In the thirty years since Americans United was decided, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that, in assessing facially neutral student aid laws, a court may not inquire into the extent to which religious teaching pervades a particular institution’s curriculum. Doing so violates the First Amendment.

This means that a First Amendment violation does not occur when a facially neutral law happens to fund religious school. Rather, the true First Amendment violation occurs when an activist court seeks to scrutinize the curriculum of schools funded by vouchers to sniff out religion it doesn’t like.

Heh!

Needless to say, no one has ever gone to Harvard, UW at Madison, Yale, or any other bastion of Leftist thought to challenge their right to public funds based on the depth of their beliefs.

These two decisions add to a growing file of case law supporting the right to school choice. And that's a very important issue..if not one of the most important.

A 15-Year -Old Conservative Deals With Bullying From Public School Teachers

 

Benji Backer is a politically active fifteen-year-old in Wisconsin. Here he speaks in his own words on the kind of indoctrination he's getting in the public schools:


As a 15 year old, I never imagined my activism in politics would translate into controversy for me at school.

My name is Benji Backer and I attend a public high school in Appleton, Wisconsin. I have always supported the public school system and plan to do so for the rest of my life. Many Americans who stand up for the public school system and the unions believe there is no attempt to sway opinion or that students with opposing beliefs are singled out. Unfortunately, experiences I have had with harassment and bullying prove that wrong. This is a timeline of the most extreme cases of harassment and indoctrination I have had in the three different public schools I have attended over the last three years.

I am currently in my freshman year of high school and the incidents are happening more frequently and I believe are more severe. As you can imagine, the ongoing pressure and bullying has been disturbing to me, my friends and my family.

Just before the 2010 Midterm election, I was on the front page of the local newspaper for my political volunteer work and my teachers noticed. One of my seven teachers made it very clear that she dissaproved of my civic engagement. In a period of two months, my Geography teacher frequently would take me aside after school for a few minutes and tell me how stupid, wrong and misguided I was for being Republican. The harassment with this specific teacher got so bad, I had to switch schools halfway through the year. At this time I was only 12 years old. To my knowledge, this teacher was not disciplined at all for her actions.

Two months after I switched to my new school, Scott Walker passed the controversial Budget Repair Bill. Most of the teachers at my new school were more than upset. A couple of my teachers wore red every day while crying, protesting and providing a one-sided perspective on the reforms and making it clear to us just how bad they believed Scott Walker was. One teacher even said she wouldn’t be able to have another child because Scott Walker was cutting so much money from her pay.

A few months later, I expected things to die down and be over with; it didn’t. Almost four months after Walker’s budget was passed, I walked into choir to find a substitute teacher showing us a 5 minute video about how great unions were and then she talked for an additional 10 minutes about how bad she believed Scott Walker to be. At the end of the class, I stood up, defended the governor and told her how inappropriate her behavior was. I was told she didn’t do that to another class for the rest of the day.

During my 8th grade year I received more attention for my political activity. I had become known in the community because of newspaper, radio and TV interviews and was aware that this would possibly make me a target. Not only was I a volunteer for Governor Walker, but I was a very vocal supporter of him as well. While there were some minor instances of teachers complaining about Walker and a few mentions of my media appearances and such, the rhetoric seemed to be dying down.

It was a short-lived reprieve. Things have deteriorated again this year, my freshman year. I came into the year with the knowledge that some teachers would already view me negatively because of my political views and I was correct.

Right after Scott Walker won the recall election, I started helping out candidates for November. I was named Young Americans for Mitt Romney Co-Chair in Wisconsin and once again, my teachers took notice; my English teacher in particular. In one of the first weeks of school, he had us write about an article we had read for homework. The article was about political campaigns “mining” into the personal lives of the American people. He asked, “other than Facebook and phone calls, how do campaigns mine into personal lives?” I raised my hand and replied: “well, you can check who signed the recall.” Immediately after, he said “I signed that!” That was the trigger to the last 40 minutes of class. He spent the remainder of that period lecturing us about how much he hated Scott Walker and explained all the reasons why. He said, “most small business owners and workers take off Fridays and summers”. According to him, small business owners go golfing every Friday. He also said many businessmen work fewer hours than teachers. He explained how his pay was too low to support his family. He told the class his pay was so bad he had to paint houses in the summers. During this discussion, he was swearing and saying how wrong it was for anyone to support Walker. Students were telling him to stop, and he wouldn’t.

I decided I would not argue with him. Past experiences had shown me that arguing with someone like him would only make things worse and inflame the situation. Since no one was debating him, these students were being presented a very biased view and placed in a very uncomfortable situation. By the end of class, some students had a completely negative view of Scott Walker.

A couple of days later, he took me into the hall and apologized. He said he had felt bad about it all weekend. He then gave me a book to read about Abraham Lincoln. He told me that “good politicians read a lot.” Then he said, “I don’t think Scott Walker likes to read.” The indoctrination and conversations with the class dropped off for a while after this incident, but in mid-October, it started up again. On a regular basis, he would talk about politics in front of the class or in private with me.

The harassment got particularly bad one day in late October, about a week after I was featured in USA Today for my involvement in the upcoming November election. Again, this video and article was sent throughout the school and was even played in several classes. The same English teacher who had lectured to almost 30 students about a month earlier took me aside during class again. He started talking about Mitt Romney and Scott Walker and his views on them. He reiterated how much harder he worked compared to my dad, a small business owner, which he had no knowledge of. He went on to ask how much my parents made because he wanted to compare it to his salary.

Later, I looked up this teacher’s salary. He had been making over $100,000 with benefits for the 2010-11 school year, the same year Walker's reform bill passed. For a few more days, he talked to me in class about his feelings about Walker and Romney. I decided to tell my parents about the two incidents. My parents thought it was very inappropriate and decided we needed to talk to the principal about it. The principal at my school was very upset with the situation. He was disappointed in my English teacher and he told me I needed to talk to my teacher one on one. After I talked to the teacher, my principal said he would meet up with him to follow up. When I went during my lunch hour to talk to my teacher, he apologized and took ownership for everything. Later during the apology, he started to talk about Walker again and how much he hated him. He just couldn’t stop. At the end of the conversation, my teacher asked “you know how you went down to the principal’s office?” I said yes, and he said “I don’t give a sh*t.” I asked why, and he went on to explain that he was friends with the principal so it didn’t matter to him and he wouldn’t get in trouble because of their friendship. [...]

In my Health class, also this year, our very first homework assignment included writing down four activities you do as a person currently and four things you want to do in the future. We were also assigned to present in front of the class. In one of my four boxes, I wrote down that I was a conservative speaker. When I presented in front of the class, he asked if I supported the Tea Party. I said yes. He rolled his eyes and told me believing in the organization was “weird." He also told me he knew nothing about the Tea Party. This teacher then told me to explain, in front of the class why I supported the Tea Party, so I did. When I left the class, I thought about what had happened. Why was I being called “weird?” Why was I being questioned so much? The simple truth reveals that some teachers want to obstruct and block my personal views from looking valid. If a teacher asked why someone was homosexual, Atheist or Muslim and called what they believed “weird”, there would be serious consequences. I decided not to report this to the principal because I realized it wouldn’t help. I had experienced the fallout from reporting prior instances and I didn't want a repeat situation.

The latest incident involved another substitute teacher in my civics (government) class. Every day we watch a ten minute show called CNN Student News. The substitute asked us to recap the show and discuss it in class. The first part of the show had to do with gun control. Instead of having us discuss the topics as she said she would, she decided to share her views. She talked almost twenty minutes. In those twenty minutes, she said the recently released picture of Obama shooting a gun was forced out by the conservative and far-right members. She explained how she believed Obama’s birth certificate was forced out, therefore this was too. For about five minutes, she called all Republicans racist. According to her, she had never seen such discrimination against a president and President Obama has been the most ill-treated president in the history of the United States, all because the Republicans don't want a black man in the White House.

Read it all here.

Federal Judge Upholds New AZ Law Banning Ethnic Studies Classes

An Arizona law that ended ethnic studies courses in Tucson schools has been largely upheld as constitutional by a federal judge.

The 'largely' comes from U.S. Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima voicing concern that the part of the law that prohibits courses designed for particular ethnic groups was vague.

Tashima ruled that the provision’s wording was “broad and ambiguous,” raising serious constitutional concerns that threaten “to chill the teaching of legitimate and objective ethnic studies courses.”

Still, Arizona Atty. Gen. Tom Horne this week called the ruling on HB 2281 a “victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”

Horne, who wrote the law, and those who support it said the Mexican American Studies Program in the Tucson school system promoted resentment toward a race or a class of people and advocated ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of people as individuals.

Defenders of the program rejected that characterization and said it taught often neglected aspects of U.S. history and inspired Latino students to excel in school.

Trustees of the Tucson Unified School District discontinued the program in January 2012 after state officials determined the program violated the new law.

Needless to say, Mexican-American activist groups are vowing to appeal.Let's at least not be hypocritical in acknowledging where the objections are coming from.

I have no knowledge of what the courses in Tucson are like. But based on what I've seen in California, where courses in Chicano studies are developed with the active aid and input of of racist groups like La Raza, I'm going to make a cautious assumption that the material the Tucson Board found objectionable was fairly similar.

The difference between those of these courses I'm directly familiar with other courses of this type (say, Asian Studies for example) is readily apparent when you look at the course material. While a student might study Chinese history in America, Japanese culture or similar items in Asian Studies, the emphasis and basis of every Chicano or Mexican American studies course I'm familiar with is on racial solidarity, cultural superiority, resentment of 'anglos' and the mythic possibilities of regaining Aztlán from them some day. You won't find these courses teaching, for example that there are more Medal of Honor winners with Hispanic surnames than any other ethnic group in America or that the tyrannical Aztec culture idealized in these classes was one where basic technology like the wheel, the use of sail to move boats and the working of metals somehow never occurred to anyone, and where cannibalism and human sacrifice were practiced avidly.

But in spite of that, I totally agree that the law, known as must not discriminate and must be clear cut and ethnically neutral. I have no problem with banning all 'ethnic studies classes and breaking them down to individual classes as necessary...History of Mexico 101 for example, or East Africa History and Culture 1A.

Among the other benefits, it might put a lot of racist radicals who've used 'ethnic studies ' as a hustle to get tenure and six figure salaries from the taxpayers looking elsewhere than the rape and pollution of young minds for their livelihood.

-Selah-

College Seeks To Fire Professor Who Tried To Force Students To Vote For Obama

President James Richey of Florida's Brevard College has recommended that tenured Professor Sharon Sweet be fired after a three month investigation into her activities during the 2012 election.

The investigation said that she was guilty of 'electioneering, harassment, and incompetence', pretty strong language for academics to use about one of their own:

According to a report on the investigation:

“Professor Sweet strongly encouraged or mandated that students from several classes sign a pledge card that stated, ‘I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.’ She also misrepresented her intentions to multiple students, indicating at various times that she was conducting voter registration for the college, that the pledge cards were non-partisan voter registration forms, and that the pledge was a ‘statistical analysis.’”

In the eyes of the college, Sweet clearly created a hostile environment for students, since many feared their grades would be affected if they did not sign the pledge.

She also distributed partisan campaign materials in her class. Oh, and by the way, she taught math.So the taxpayers were paying for her to waste classroom time on something that had nothing even remotely to do with what she was supposed to be doing.

As of right now, Professor Sweet remains on paid leave until The Board of trustees votes on whether to fire her.

I see the race card floating to the top of the deck even as I write this,and I'd be very surprised if Attorney General Eric Holder wasn't just awaiting the Board's verdict to get our so-called Justice department involved on Professor Sweet's behalf on the taxpayer's dime.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution!

 

That's the title of an amazing rant in today's Pravda-on-the-Hudson, written by one Louis Michael Seidman who -wait for it- receives a handsome salary from the taxpayers to teach Constitutional law at Georgetown University in Washington DC. Here's a slice:

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Hey, why not? We could confiscate the guns from all those knuckle draggers in flyover country, we could have Barack Obama as president for life, we could get rid of the Tenth Amendment and take away all state's rights, there's literally no limits on government and what it can do. And that, of course, is what educated fools like Professor Seidman are absolutely clueless about. Read this:

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.

Ah, but without the Constitution, Professor, there's no guarantee that you can just keep the bits and pieces you like.The document is unique in  that it supplies a foundation and an anchor for our liberties, even the ones you disapprove of.Cut the anchor and those rights drift away with the prevailing wind.

For instance, who's to say that the next president - perhaps one Professor Seidman didn't vote for, or more likely one he did given his embrace of the statist agenda - won't interpret anything that's  left in his own ways? For instance, why not put another 5 or 10 justices on the Supreme Court, all appointed by the current president? Franklin Roosevelt tried it, and was only halted when even Democrat leaders in Congress told him it was flat out unconstitutional and they wouldn't support it. Or maybe we should just scrap the court altogether. Why not? And while we're at it, we can interpret some of those freedoms the professor claims to approve of in startlingly different ways.

I also sniff something else that's more than a little bit foul in this educated fool's agenda. He's complaining here about revenue bills originating in the House precisely because there's a GOP majority there. Was he similarly opposed to President Obama's 'stimulus' or ObamaCare, both measures that were shoved through when Democrats had a supermajority and Republicans were literally locked out of the room? Both of those measures have had an adverse fiscal effect on the nation, but do you think Professor Seidman was jumping up and down screaming then?

I bet you my dollar to your dime he wasn't.

People like our friend Professor Seidman have been lecturing to captive audiences so long without being challenged that they no longer feel the necessity of actually thinking, what with tenure and all that goes with it.If this degreed buffoon actually got what he's asking for here, he might not like it half as much as he thinks he would.

Those 'white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries'  had more common sense in their individual  little fingers than Professor Seidman does in his entire body. The Founders understood that  human nature is unchanging, and they did a damned fine job of formulating the Constitution to stand the test of time and protect us against parasites like the professor who would nibble away at out liberties until they vanished..all for the Greater Good, of course.

HS Principal Retracts Order That All Students Stand For 'Black National Anthem'

There's been a policy change at Capital High School in Charleston, WVA concerning what's called its morning observance policy.

Mornings at Capital High formerly featured the Pledge of Allegiance and our national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner".

Principal Clinton Giles,pictured above, added a new wrinkle, the mandatory playing of "Lift Every Voice and Sing", long considered by many African-Americans to be 'the black national anthem'. He demanded that all students stand in respect for all three.

When some students objected to standing, feeling that making "Lift Every Voice and Sing" the equivalent to our national anthem was disrespectful,Principle Giles blew his top:

Kim Bailey is the mother of one student who chose not to stand. She said the song is considered the "African-American National Anthem" and it was disrespectful to make students stand for it.

Her son chose not to stand and was sent to the office several times because of his decision, she said. She also said Giles made statements over the loudspeaker about the situation that "ostracized" her son.

She was glad to learn late Wednesday that the policy would change but was still upset about the situation.

After an investigation by Mark Milam, assistant superintendent for Kanawha County high schools, and a conversation with Superintendent Ron Duerring, Giles decided to change the policy:

Giles said he was "completely and totally exonerated" following the investigation, but the school is adding the words "or sit" to its policy regarding student participation during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"It was determined that if I reinsert that language . . . it would put the whole issue to rest," Giles said Wednesday in a phone interview.

The policy will now read, "during the Pledge, nonparticipating students are expected to stand or sit silently and are not to engage in any disrupting or distracting activity."

Giles said no student was ever punished for not standing during any portion of the morning observances. He spoke about the situation at an assembly but said he did so only to give students the facts. He said the idea he belittled students is a lie.

"There has never been an announcement made for students to stand for the playing of the African American National Anthem at Capital High School. That has never happened, won't happen," Giles said.

Giles apparently isn't saying why a number students were sent to the office for not standing respectfully during the playing of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" if it wasn't policy and his denial that he never made demeaning comments about children who wouldn't stand is contradicted by a number of students and parents.

The district authorities originally weren't going to touch this one, and ignored letters from parents. What finally brought it to a head was a letter from a parent to Kanawha County Board of Education President Pete Thaw, who demanded the district superintendent look into it and take action.

"I just want to have a class. Why are we doing this? Why are we interfering with our business? Our business is to educate children," Thaw said Wednesday.

Ah, but they're being educated.Trust me on that.

After the fit hit the Shan, Giles reportedly threw a mini-tantrum and the national anthem and pledge were not played that Monday at the school. Giles' story is that said he "postponed" them "so that the good people could speak out" in support. But the key to whom he is and where he's coming from is his statement that the district should really be looking at other schools and whether they play the national anthem and recite the pledge every day before school.

So, while students will no longer be required to stand for the national anthem, the pledge and whatever else Principal Giles thinks they should be required to hear, he'll still be able to play it to a captive audience.

In fact, the principal now says he is going to play a different song, one that reflects 'his feelings about the nation'. I can only imagine.

Is there something wrong with "Lift Every Voice and Sing"? Not particularly, in its proper context as a relic of the civil rights era.The lyrics and the use to which it's been put over the years make that pretty clear.Sung in a black church or a private gathering, the song is not at all inappropriate.

But touted as 'the black national anthem', positioned as the equivalent or a substitute for "The Star Spangled Banner" and played before a captive audience in a public school is something very different.

It sends a message to both blacks and non-blacks of separatism and disdain for our shared heritage as Americans. Simply put, it's racist. To do that to children whom have no choice is absolutely disgraceful.

The Pledge and our national anthem are something all Americans share, and denying that is deliberately choosing to put yourself outside that common experience.

Let's spin this and imagine that Principal Giles was white and chose to force students to stand in respect while "The Bonnie Blue Flag", "Dixie" or something else characterized as 'the white national anthem ' was played.

Would he still have a job?

U Of CO Study That Correctly Predicted The Last 8 Elections Says Romney Will Win

This is interesting..a University of Colorado study that has correctly predicted the winner of the last 8 elections says Mitt Romney will win in 2012:

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

This model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran in 1980 and 1992.

The study is scheduled to be published in PS: Political Science & Politics, the journal of the American Political Science Association.

The Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is unique reportedly because it's the only one to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions.

Aside from state and national unemployment rates, the authors looked at per capita income. Their research indicates that voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.

Their results show that “the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

In 2012, “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.

In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama’s 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.

Needless to say, the researchers give themselves wiggle room.The data used in the current study was taken five months in advance of the election and Bickers and Berry plan to update it with more current economic data in September. Another factor they mention is that states very close to a 50-50 split could end up with an unexpected result.

Since I don't expect the economy or unemployment to improve between now and November 6th, it'll be interesting to see if Bickers and Berry make it 9-0.