UW-Milwaukee Fights to Defund College Republicans

May 19 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is the latest school doing everything they can to shut down and silence any conservative voice on campus. I am an alumnus of this school who luckily had great teachers while acquiring a major in film studies (of all things). Unfortunately, there was nothing but horror stories from my friends taking courses in communication (some of which I took) and sociology. Even worse was trying to find anyone who would refer to anything conservative as something other than “controversial.” This is a university that prides itself on bringing Martin Luther King to campus decades ago when he was a “controversial” speaker. Today, controversy is anything Right of the leftist mafia on campus. It took me a while to realize how radical the campus was because my film professors (even the far-Left ones) were willing to have civil discussions about politics, which were always pleasant and welcomed. In fact, most of them would avoid politics altogether because it wasn’t a pivotal part of the coursework in the majority of classes. What opened my eyes was the first time I saw how conservative guest-speakers were treated on campus by the students. I’ve long heard about issues of indoctrination in humanities courses, that’s not what I saw here. Instead, what I witnessed at UWM was bigger than a single academic department. As with any conservative speaker at most universities there is always an attempt from the Left’s foot soldiers to shout down the guest in an attempt to silence their voice. When I was still a student at UWM, I attended a speech by conservative activist David Horowitz which endured consistent and disrespectful disruptions (not to mention that he was subject to an anti-Semitic cartoon being distributed around campus prior to the event). The atmosphere was even worse when former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat was invited to speak about the threats of radical Islam. Neither of these speakers are “Right-wingers” by any means, but their voice was not tolerated. Because of threats, both events required security which should not have been necessary. On April 25th the UWM College Republicans invited Karl Rove to speak at their campus. Able to predict how the Left would try to disrupt the event, the College Republicans found a way to thwart leftist attempts to shout down an invited speaker to campus. They were able to distribute tickets themselves and through local conservative radio host Vicki McKenna. This helped fill the front rows with donors or supporters and also helped for security purposes. The reaction from the democrats and allies in the Student Association (SA) on campus was to attack the College Republicans, fighting to cut their funding. Read the rest at Big Government

Go here to read the rest:
UW-Milwaukee Fights to Defund College Republicans

No responses yet

AIM: Al-Jazeera’s “Exclusive” Relationship With Al-Qaeda

May 18 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

AIM on Facebook | Twitter From Accuracy in Media ‘s Cliff Kincaid: Living up to its reputation as the “terror TV” channel, Al-Jazeera has run an “exclusive” story announcing the name of the new al-Qaeda chief replacing Osama bin Laden. He is Saif al-Adel, who is on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted terrorists . He is wanted for “Conspiracy to Kill United States Nationals, to Murder, to Destroy Buildings and Property of the United States, and to Destroy the National Defense Utilities of the United States.” Here’s how Reuters news agency reported the news: “Al Qaeda has appointed an Egyptian militant as temporary leader and named a new head of operations following the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. commandos, al Jazeera reported on Wednesday, citing its own correspondent … The channel is seen as having good contacts with militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan and was the main conduit for bin Laden to release messages to the media.” (emphasis added). Indeed, one of Al-Jazeera’s correspondents was convicted and sentenced to prison in Spain for being an agent of al-Qaeda. Al-Jazeera has also obtained “exclusive footage” of the Pakistan Taliban vowing revenge for Osama bin Laden’s death, the channel is reporting . The exclusive footage was obtained by Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad. The Pakistan Taliban works with al-Qaeda. In another story, “I knew bin Laden,” Al-Jazeera has broadcast “An insight into Osama bin Laden’s life through the eyes of people who knew him and met him.” The story was narrated by Ahmad Zaidan, Al-Jazeera Arabic’s Islamabad correspondent, described by a public television program as “one of the last journalists to interview” bin Laden and “the recipient of several of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués, including an audio recording released in November 2002, in which bin Laden allegedly applauds the recent terrorist attacks in Bali and Yemen.” Senior Al-Jazeera producer Hassan Ibrahim, who went to school with bin Laden, says al-Qaeda continues to make plans to attack the U.S. on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. “I’ve been following the fundamentalist traffic over the past several weeks, and I noticed something strange,” he says. “They communicate by code. And the code is made up of Koranic verses. The rearrangement of certain verses makes up the letters. I noticed that they are planning something big for this Sept. 11th. I don’t know if the Americans will find anything in the files recovered from bin Laden’s home. My guess is an attack on a nuclear reactor. They want to hit the U.S. big time.” In the interview, Ibrahim discloses that “…we made a lot of money out of Al Qaeda” by selling bin Laden tapes to other news organizations. “A tape in the old days would sell for US $100,000,” he says. “You get the tape, and then other news organizations wanted to air it as well. So it was selling.” Meantime, television broadcaster Jerry Kenney, a leading critic of the Qatar-based channel, is blasting Senator John McCain for praising the channel and giving Al-Jazeera an exclusive interview. His open letter to McCain says: Senator McCain: I voted for you in the last Presidential election and I am very, very disappointed that you have chosen to lend your credibility to Al-Jazeera. It is obvious that you don’t understand that you are being used by a very sophisticated propaganda machine in the same way that Jane Fonda was by the North Vietnamese. No difference, except you haven’t posed sitting on anti-aircraft guns. That would be too obvious. Freedom House lists the country of Qatar (the owner and operator of Al-Jazeera) as NOT having a free press. Wouldn’t it be better if you took the stance that you will appear on Al-Jazeera when the dictator of Qatar guarantees a free independent press for his own subjects/citizens? I fear for my country when a national leader with such a distinguished war record exercises such poor judgment. It seems that you care more about getting on TV anywhere anytime then you do America. Sincerely, Jerry Kenney Daytona Beach, FL gkenney@kenneytv.com

Visit link:
AIM: Al-Jazeera’s “Exclusive” Relationship With Al-Qaeda

No responses yet

Giving Illegal Immigrants The Edge Over American College Students?

May 18 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

If, let’s say, you’re a student from North Carolina, Ohio, or Arizona who wants to go to a public university in Maryland, you have to pay a higher rate than teenagers who live in the state. On the other hand, if you’re in the country illegally, you get the cheaper in-state rate . This week, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signed a bill to require the state’s public universities to give undocumented aliens — generally illegal — in-state tuition privileges. The bill, known as the Dream Act, is already the law in ten other states, including California, New York, Texas and Illinois. But critics argue that the bill will give illegal aliens better treatment than Americans and legal immigrants — thanks to existing diversity policies at universities. University of Maryland (College Park) computer science Prof. James Purtilo told FoxNews.com that, during his time as an associate dean, he frequently saw admission officers favor students because of their “undocumented” status. “They favor students with special circumstances. ‘Undocumented alien’ would be one of these special circumstances… They help fill out the diversity picture for the admissions office.” Continue reading at Right Wing News .

Go here to read the rest:
Giving Illegal Immigrants The Edge Over American College Students?

No responses yet

Book Review: Henry Kissinger’s “On China”

May 18 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com When Nixon went to China in 1972, I was a very impressionable and inquisitive five-year-old who was captivated by the news reports about the leader of our country visiting this distant and fascinating land. Understanding that America and China had long experienced tension with each other, and alienation, Nixon’s visit had as great an impact on me as the moon landing had for children three years previously. Because the China visit was all I knew of him, Henry Kissinger, the man with the German accent who had facilitated the trip on behalf of our country was, to me, as marvelous as many schoolchildren deemed the astronauts of Apollo 11 to be. So it is that I did feel quite honored to receive an advance copy of Kissinger’s new book “ On China “, a thorough overview of China’s relationship with the world from ancient times through today based on Henry Kissinger’s studies of Chinese history and his personal experiences in fifty visits to the country. Though Kissinger was something of a hero to me all those years ago, that was then. This is now. Today, the world seems smaller geographically, but even larger in its difficulties, some of which may or may not be attributed to the diplomatic mechanisms of Henry Kissinger. Certainly, Kissinger left a large footprint in the area of American foreign policy, particularly in our dealings with China. That is precisely why his book is such an important contribution to the study of history. Certainly, it is a book that should be read by anyone who desires to have a good understanding of China’s place in the world, regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Kissinger. One of the most important things I learned from the book was the insight given on how the people of China have viewed their nation and its place in the world over the centuries. We are certainly remiss if we do not take into account their points of view as we continue to engage in the important task of contributing to peace and stability in the world. Kissinger, however, is an icon of Realpolitik , and this shows through not only in how he handled relations with China, but also in how he wrote the book. It lacks condemnations of evil, but thankfully, also lacks support for evil. The thoroughly amoral nature of the book left me feeling very uncomfortable at times. Treating things like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion and Mao’s intent to destroy all things Confucian (not to mention his disregard for human life) as mere data for our consideration of how things were, as if they had no moral dimension, was rather shocking to me. An exchange between President Gerald Ford, Chairman Mao, and Henry Kissinger, left me utterly bewildered as it indicated to me that Mao — who ruled by terror and murdered millions — was more interested in God than Kissinger was. MAO: Your Secretary of State has been interfering in my internal affairs. FORD: Tell me about it. MAO: He does not allow me to go and meet God. He even tells me to disobey the order that God has given to me. God has sent me an invitation,yet he [Kissinger] says, don’t go. KISSINGER: That would be too powerful a combination if he went there. MAO: He is an atheist [Kissinger]. He is opposed to God. And he is also undermining my relations with God. He is a very ferocious man and I have no other recourse than to obey his orders. In regard to readibility, the book is a quick read in places and laborious in others. Kissinger does a good job of leaving nothing unsaid when it comes to the cold, hard facts of China’s history of foreign policy, and the book flows easily from topic to topic, with short chapters packed with information. I have no doubt that “ On China “ will be widely considered as one of the most important books on foreign policy ever written. For more reviews of this book, visit TLC Book Tours . This article is cross-posted at LisaGraas.com

Read the original here:
Book Review: Henry Kissinger’s “On China”

No responses yet

The Secret Life of Bin Laden: Rape, Pot, And Sex Slaves

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

The print version of the Enquirer has a scandalous new story out about Osama Bin Laden. The piece features quotes from ex-wives and mistresses talking about his private life and it’s quite twisted. Everything from paranoia, to Bin Laden’s terrible fear of American soldiers, to his sexual perversity is discussed in the piece and normally, I would tell you to take it with a grain of salt because it’s the Enquirer . However, since it’s Osama, lets just assume it’s all true and then some… Osama’s mistress Kola Boof…says at times the terrorist held her against her will and regularly raped her. He once kept her prisoner for 10 months in a Moroccan hotel, she says. After Bin Laden disappeared, Kola was told that he had found a replacement for her — a woman he kept chained in his Pakistan hideout to serve as his sex slave. …Bin Laden pretended to be pious — but was a hypocrite, revealed the friend. “Kola said she often found ‘Playboy’ magazines in his briefcase. His favorite television shows were ‘The Wonder Years,” ‘Miami Vice’ and ‘MacGyver.” ….She told her friend (Osama) was a regular pot smoker and said he was never on kidney dialysis, despite reports to the contrary. “Kola also described Osama as having horrible body odor, and said he often beat her to make her do what he wanted sexually.” ….Despite Bin Laden’s varied tastes in women, Kola told an interviewer that at heart he was a racist who hated African-Americans….except for attractive women like his idol Whitney Houston. Continue reading at Right Wing News .

Go here to read the rest:
The Secret Life of Bin Laden: Rape, Pot, And Sex Slaves

No responses yet

AIM: Anti-Boehner Protest Fizzles Despite Washington Post Backing

May 17 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

AIM on Facebook | Twitter From Accuracy in Media ‘s Cliff Kincaid: The Washington Post noted that House Speaker John Boehner’s commencement speech at the Catholic University of America (CUA) was non-political. But the Post story about the speech was entirely political. The story slammed Boehner’s conservative Catholic views by using a student at the event—one of about 30 liberal “social justice” advocates—to argue that the Republican from Ohio isn’t compassionate enough toward the poor. Here’s how the Post story by Katherine Shaver began: “Katy Jamison strode toward her graduation from Catholic University on Saturday wearing the requisite black robe and mortar board—plus a neon green message to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). ‘Where’s the compassion, Mr. Boehner?’ said the 8-by-10-inch sign pinned to her chest.” Jamison, it turns out, was one of “about 30” involved in this “protest,” out of 1,500 students receiving bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral graduates. And this is what the Post decided to emphasize. It is a case study of liberal media bias through deliberate distortion. The purpose was to portray Boehner as not only heartless but out of step with the teaching of the Catholic Church. But the ploy failed, based on the paltry numbers of protesters, according to the paper’s own account. Boehner was selected, CUA said , because he is “A strong supporter of Catholic education in the District of Columbia, particularly the inner-city Consortium of Catholic Academies, [and] he co-chairs an annual dinner to benefit the organization.” Boehner has long been an advocate of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (DC OSP) to provide poor or low-income students an opportunity to receive a scholarship to attend a D.C. private school of their parents’ choice. He invited some of the students benefiting from the program to be his guests at the State of the Union. One of the students, Lesly Alvarez, was described as an outstanding eighth-grade student who attends Sacred Heart School, a private Catholic school where 100 percent of eighth-graders graduated on-time during the past three years. “Without the OSP scholarship,” noted a report on WUSA in Washington, D.C., “Alvarez would not be able to attend the private school that charges around $8,100 per child.” But President Obama, who sends his children to exclusive secular private schools, opposed the Boehner initiative. Giving poor parents the ability to send their children to a private Catholic school so they can get a better education doesn’t qualify as “social justice” to the students and their faculty advisers putting on the anti-Boehner protest. The attack was not unexpected; the Post had already run an article in advance of Boehner’s appearance noting that a group of liberal Catholic professors had taken issue with the House Speaker’s desire to cut government spending and debt. Not surprisingly, the Shaver article regurgitated what had already appeared, in order to make it appear that the protest of about 30 students was the dramatic culmination of what the professors had set in motion. In truth, the protest demonstrated that most students wanted no part of this political show. The show was staged by a group of liberal professors, led by Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, who decided to use the university and manipulate students for the purpose of serving as cannon fodder against the Republican Party as 2012 rolls around. The Post of course cannot be counted on to point out that Schneck is a board member of the George Soros-funded Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), a “progressive” front group that is designed to counter the conservative and pro-life tendencies that many Catholics, including John Boehner, embrace. Schneck, who does not include this outside affiliation on his official CUA bio , works closely with White House official Alexia Kelley, former executive director of CACG and a speaker at his recent conference. The CACG has been described by some observers as inactive, but in fact it continues to organize support for “progressive” Catholic functions at places like CUA. There was a new development, as far as the Post was concerned. “A letter signed by 83 students and sent to university president John Garvey on Thursday said Boehner was an inappropriate keynote speaker because the fiscal 2012 budget resolution that he had championed severely cut funding for food assistance, programs for low-income children and help for the homeless,” the paper said. Out of a total enrollment of 3,470 undergraduate and 3,240 graduate students, the liberal-left could muster only 83? This was big news for the Post, desperate to make Boehner look bad. The number of signers in fact “swelled” to 86 in the final version , which attacked Boehner for opposing illegal immigration and several federal welfare state schemes. The Post failed to note that the campus student paper took a very different view than those 86, editorializing , “Finally, a speaker allowed to come to the University that we can be proud of.” Less than two weeks earlier, Schneck and his allies had organized a campus forum in tribute to “social justice” featuring former AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, both of them members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Sweeney accused university officials of union-busting—a charge that the university dismissed as a gross misrepresentation. Meyerson, a non-Catholic, told the forum that he was a follower of Michael Harrington, the Catholic-turned-atheist. He thought this was a good role model for students on campus to follow. What the campus socialists tried to do under the nose of CUA President Harvey was to undermine and taint the commencement address by House Speaker Boehner and put this great Catholic University into the Obama-for-President camp. They failed, despite the Post’s feeble attempt to pump some life into this pathetic “protest.” True to form, Boehner broke down in tears as he described to the CUA students his Catholic upbringing. For Harvey, however, it is not a time for tears but action. The politically “progressive” Obama supporters at CUA who masquerade as professors tried to ruin the university’s commencement ceremony. Harvey—and CUA alumni—may not forget that.

See the original post here:
AIM: Anti-Boehner Protest Fizzles Despite Washington Post Backing

No responses yet

Why Do One-In-Five American Voters Now Believe Osama Bin Laden Is Still Alive?

May 16 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Over at the LA Times , Andrew Malcolm asks, “ Why do one-in-five American voters now believe Osama bin Laden is still alive? “ This incredulity phenomenon is a curious creation of a high-speed global media so full of unverified and unverifiable information floating about, combined with a modern cynicism about political leaders masquerading as voter wisdom. After so many lies and misleading claims by politicians over the decades since the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy theories (“I am not a crook” “I did not have sex with that woman”), the safest way to look wise and experienced these days is to dismiss virtually any public official’s statement as a talking point and/or lie. The widespread arrival of television some 60 years ago and more recently online video has trained people to expect some kind of visual confirmation of virtually any news, either live or shortly after. Its absence almost surely spawns doubts. President Obama watched the raid live via satellite and has seen the photos. Because he himself was convinced of Bin Laden’s death, the president deemed providing visual — albeit allegedly gruesome — photographic proof to any doubting fellow Americans was unnecessary. The people could take his word for it. …Operating in a longtime one-party city like Chicago, Democratic politicians do not often feel beholden to explaining themselves to the obedient public. So, the lesson this president from there obviously drew from his unnecessary birth certificate-sealing confrontation was to do it again with the Bin Laden photos. Number one, there’s a lot of truth to the “cynicism” angle Malcolm discusses. The thinking for a lot of people who buy into conspiracy theories works basically like so: Have you seen how the President from the other party behaves? He’s a rotten, lying son-of-a-b*tch! He’s capable of anything! Therefore, it’s as likely as not that he’s really the one responsible for X, Y, and Z. I mean, I don’t know FOR SURE that he did it, but he’s a bad guy and I wouldn’t put anything past him! Then, after they conclude that he’s responsible because he’s such a bad guy, they go out and find evidence to support their contention. That may sound like a poorly thought out, backwards way to think, but it’s actually very common. In fact, you probably do it yourself in certain areas without realizing it. Think about sports fans, parents talking about their children, or a discussion with your boss about whether you deserve a raise or not. See? More common than you thought. But, some people take it to an extreme — which brings us to the second factor, one discussed rather crudely in the South Park episode, “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.” Continue reading at Right Wing News . FOR APPROVAL: Answering The Question: Why Do One-In-Five American Voters Now Believe Osama Bin Laden Is Still Alive? X Inbox X Reply Jenn Q. Public to David show details 5:19 PM (35 minutes ago) Hawkins excerpt: Over at the LA Times , Andrew Malcolm asks, “ Why do one-in-five American voters now believe Osama bin Laden is still alive? “ This incredulity phenomenon is a curious creation of a high-speed global media so full of unverified and unverifiable information floating about, combined with a modern cynicism about political leaders masquerading as voter wisdom. After so many lies and misleading claims by politicians over the decades since the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy theories (“I am not a crook” “I did not have sex with that woman”), the safest way to look wise and experienced these days is to dismiss virtually any public official’s statement as a talking point and/or lie. The widespread arrival of television some 60 years ago and more recently online video has trained people to expect some kind of visual confirmation of virtually any news, either live or shortly after. Its absence almost surely spawns doubts. President Obama watched the raid live via satellite and has seen the photos. Because he himself was convinced of Bin Laden’s death, the president deemed providing visual — albeit allegedly gruesome — photographic proof to any doubting fellow Americans was unnecessary. The people could take his word for it. …Operating in a longtime one-party city like Chicago, Democratic politicians do not often feel beholden to explaining themselves to the obedient public. So, the lesson this president from there obviously drew from his unnecessary birth certificate-sealing confrontation was to do it again with the Bin Laden photos. Number one, there’s a lot of truth to the “cynicism” angle Malcolm discusses. The thinking for a lot of people who buy into conspiracy theories works basically like so: Have you seen how the President from the other party behaves? He’s a rotten, lying son-of-a-b*tch! He’s capable of anything! Therefore, it’s as likely as not that he’s really the one responsible for X, Y, and Z. I mean, I don’t know FOR SURE that he did it, but he’s a bad guy and I wouldn’t put anything past him! Then, after they conclude that he’s responsible because he’s such a bad guy, they go out and find evidence to support their contention. That may sound like a poorly thought out, backwards way to think, but it’s actually very common. In fact, you probably do it yourself in certain areas without realizing it. Think about sports fans, parents talking about their children, or a discussion with your boss about whether you deserve a raise or not. See? More common than you thought. But, some people take it to an extreme — which brings us to the second factor, one discussed rather crudely in the South Park episode, “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.” Continue reading at Right Wing News . Reply Forward Reply by chat to David Reply David Swindle to me show details 5:47 PM (6 minutes ago) approved. – Show quoted text – – David Swindle Associate Editor – FrontPage Magazine Managing Editor – NewsReal Blog http://twitter.com/DaveSwindle “Yet there are moments when the walls of the mind grow thin; when nothing is unabsorbed, and I could fancy that we might blow so vast a bubble that the sun might set and rise in it and we might take the blue of midday and the black of midnight and be cast off and escape from here and now.” — The Waves by Virginia Woolf Reply Forward Reply by chat to David

See the original post here:
Why Do One-In-Five American Voters Now Believe Osama Bin Laden Is Still Alive?

No responses yet

Why I’m Glad I Haven’t Gotten Married…Yet

May 14 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

One of the reasons I’m such a big fan of Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Are The Way The Are is because it helped me look at an important aspect of my life from a different angle. You see, although I do plan to get married, I can’t help but note that most of my friends who are my age have already gotten married and had kids. So, have I waited too long to get around to it? Maybe. There’s a lot to be said for being married to a woman you love, living in a house with a white picket fence, and pumping out 2.1 rugrats. In fact, that represents the American dream to a lot of people. I find it appealing as well and ideally, that’s how things will play out for me in the future. However, there are a couple of issues a man in my situation has to consider. The first is rather obvious. Yes, a lot of people my age are married and already have kids. Of course, more than a few of those people are now divorced, too. I’ve gotten to see the ramifications of divorce up close — really good people who’re broken hearted, struggling financially, and engaged in angry, horrible fighting over the kids. And the whole idea of finding one person you love so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with her or him — then after spending years together, watching that relationship shatter despite your best efforts — it must be crushing. From what I’ve seen, even the most “amicable” divorces usually leave horrific scars. Also, after seeing a number of friends go through bad marriages and divorces, it’s a little scary to realize how unrealistic the romantic notion of marriage I had when I was young turned out to be. Two people find each other, they love each other, they get married, and it’ll all work out in the end. Simple, right? Not so. I’ve seen marriages implode because one of the people involved just got complacent. Other times, one of the partners kept growing as a person while the other didn’t. Then there are the people who met each other’s needs when they got married, but a few years later, they realized they just weren’t well suited for each other. And there’s always a backstory. We all like to make one person into the “bad guy” or the “b*tch,” but it’s usually not that simple. Have you ever seen someone cheat and thought, “That’s wrong, but if I were married to someone who treated me like that, I might be tempted to cheat, too?” I have. Have you ever seen a really decent, confident, competent person who questions everything he’s ever done because his marriage is falling apart and thought, “There, but for the grace of God, go I?” I have. Continue reading at Right Wing News .

Link:
Why I’m Glad I Haven’t Gotten Married…Yet

No responses yet

Older posts »