Topmost (in use)

Author Archive | Mike S. Adams

Kids Write Obama on Abortion; Obama Misplaces Them

I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:

1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.

2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as “health care” within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally

3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.

But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That’s normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.

What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters – all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:

Grant writes “Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have.”

Julia writes “Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States.”

Taejah writes “I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children – liberal or conservative – are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions – despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there’s even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try.”

If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Stand For Life

A former student recently emailed that she was disappointed that I had gotten so heavily involved with the student pro-life movement in recent years. She said she could remember a time when I had a love for defending free speech rights. Her email was somewhat unfair as I am still defending First Amendment rights (did she read my last column?). Also, I have been involved in pro-life advocacy since I became a columnist in 2002. In fact, my very first published column was on the topic of abortion.

In the event my former student is reading this expression of anti-abortion advocacy, I would like to enumerate the reasons why she – a pro-lifer herself – should have been involved in the student pro-life movement when she was in college. The following are also reasons why all pro-life students should be actively pro-life:

1. The Societal Diminution of all Human Life. The pro-abortion choice movement has produced a general devaluing of human life that can only be corrected by a strong pro-life movement among students. How many of you were shocked by the acquittal of Casey Anthony? I was certainly angry but I was not shocked. She wanted to party and to date without being weighed down by the responsibility of motherhood. I believe she killed her little girl in order to live a life of convenience. The evidence clearly points toward her unmitigated guilt. But tens of millions of women have done the same thing since Roe v. Wade. No wonder the Anthony jury seemed bored throughout most of the proceedings. No wonder she walked despite the evidence. Her kind of guilt is commonplace.

2. The proximity of the threat. The culture war is raging in America. There are battlefields everywhere but none as large or contentious as the university campus. This is where the immensely profitable non-profits make a lot of their money off abortion. They are marketing their services to your fellow students. Therefore, simply by virtue of where you are, you can make a greater difference if you are willing to cut against the current.

3. Momentum. A May 2009 Gallup Poll found 51% of Americans calling themselves pro-life. Gallup began asking that question in 1995 and this was the first time a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life. Pew Research Center did a survey around the same time showing that only 46% believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That was down from 54% the previous year. Therefore, I would urge pro-lifers to become activists because they would be joining a winning team. In so doing, they could help accelerate these positive trends.

4. State and Individual Neutrality. The state cannot be neutral on abortion. It either a) recognizes that the unborn are human and have a right to life or b) permits killing them. Since our government has taken the public policy position that the unborn are not afforded the same rights as toddlers – including the right to be free from dismemberment – you need to take a public policy position, too. That means becoming an activist, not being a pacifist in the midst of a war on the unborn.

5. Propaganda and Passivity. Pro-choice arguments are so bad that they cannot survive scrutiny. They must be confined to soliloquy, rather than subjected to debate. For example, the “back alley abortion” argument suggests that we must make killing children safe or else adults might be killed in the process. Abortion choice advocates warn that “thousands” would be killed in back alleys if abortion were once again illegal. This is the way they justify legalizing the murder of millions. The logic is twisted and the facts are wrong. The Centers for Disease Control reported that only 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Put simply, propaganda is activism. And it is only effective when repeated endlessly in the presence of the passive. So we must all be active in combatting this deadly information.

6. Men’s Liberation. Men tend to be more supportive of abortion than women. That is why it is more accurate to call the so-called abortion rights movement a men’s liberation movement – as opposed to a woman’s liberation movement. Abortion liberates men by allowing them to sleep around without fear of consequences. It frees men from fatherhood and allows them to exploit women. So we need more male activists. Next time someone says “men have never had abortions, so they should not be commenting on it” say this: “women have never played in the NFL, so they should not be sportscasters.”

7. Underlining Causes. People will tell you that you should never become an activist seeking to make abortion unacceptable or, heaven forbid, illegal. Instead, they say you should focus on underlying causes. Rape has underlying causes. Should we make it legal and instead try to treat its underlying causes? Come to think of it, spousal abuse has underlying causes, too. We would never elect a politician who ran on a platform of making it legal for a man to beat his spouse. But we routinely elect politicians who run on a platform of saying it should remain legal for a woman to kill her baby. As you young people would say, “that’s messed up.” Indeed, it is. That’s why we need activists.

Reading this column, you may have noticed that all of my observations to this point have been brilliant. I’ll have more brilliant observations in my next book, “Up from Humility.” But the brilliant observations in this column have not been mine. In fact, each and every one of them was stolen from a new book called Stand for Life: Answering the Call, Making the Case, Saving Lives by John Ensor and Scott Klusendorf.

I highly recommend John and Scott’s new book. You can pick it up on Amazon for less than the price of two tall skinny lattes or a single ticket to the late show. By the time you are finished reading, you’ll be ready to take your first steps as an activist fighting for the right of the unborn to take their first steps.

Stand for Life is more than just aptly titled. It’s a real life saver (and I mean that literally). Of course, that’s just my humble opinion.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Fellowship in the Woodlands

Most of America’s problems are cultural. Even our economic problems stem from the cultural rejection of personal responsibility and the acceptance of collective responsibility. And none of our problems would be as bad if the church was still shaping the culture instead of merely responding to it. I was reminded of this during my annual holiday trip home to The Woodlands, Texas.

I’ve attended Christmas Eve services four out of the last six years at the Woodlands Church (formerly Fellowship of the Woodlands), which is a Southern Baptist mega church that keeps its Baptist affiliation well hidden from the general public. That is symptomatic of what ails the church in 21st Century America. Production and marketing take center stage. Core beliefs are lost somewhere in the process.

Make no mistake about it; the production is good at The Woodlands Church. The set is grand and the music is wonderful. Pastor Kerry Shook and his wife Chris are largely responsible for that. Their son, a musician living in Nashville, comes home to perform in the Christmas services every year. I’ve seldom heard a more talented young singer and guitarist.

Couched in the musical productions of these mega churches, one sees an overwhelming desire to deliver a product that demonstrates the cultural relevance of the church. This is especially true on holidays when the church has more visitors than usual. This Christmas Eve, one of the singers was dressed like Michael Jackson and was moon walking around the stage as others sang. I didn’t see a likeness of baby Jesus in a manger. But I saw a likeness of Michael Jackson in a sequin outfit.

Many people dispute whether Jackson was a pedophile. No one disputes that he is still culturally relevant. Nonetheless, it was strange seeing Michael Jackson’s likeness on stage just minutes after the church staff assured parents that the church nursery provided a safe environment for their young children. Mega churches are seldom short on cash or irony.

After the music, an enormous train engine (actually, it was a life size model) appeared in the middle of the stage. It was slowly moved in on a set of make shift tracks in the midst of smoke and accompanied by the sound of a real train whistle. The pastor boasted that the whistle could be heard all the way over on highway 242. I agreed that the set was impressive. It probably took the church staff as much time to build it as would have been required to build a medium sized home for an impoverished Houston family.

The crowd at Woodlands Church also got to see a YouTube video of a man watching an old train pull into a station. I still don’t understand the point of showing the video, which featured a man so excited to see an old train that he took the Lord’s name in vain three times. Let that sink in for a minute: The Woodlands Church played (in church, mind you) a video in which a man was taking the Lord’s name in vain three times. And they did it as part of a Christmas Eve service celebrating the birth of our Lord.

It reminded me of the time I took the Lord’s name in vain in a lecture at Summit Ministries in 2010. I didn’t mean to do it. But it didn’t matter. The kids at the ministry let me have it – and rightfully so. I was absolutely in the wrong.

My question for the mega church is simple: how did the commandment-violating video get past the entire staff at the Woodlands Church without someone catching it and correcting it? It’s pretty easy to do an overdub on “oh my God” to turn it into “oh my.” But the entire staff missed it. Or perhaps they didn’t care.

Unlike my teenaged Summit students, senior pastor Kerry Shook couldn’t see anything wrong with playing that video in church on Christmas Eve – even though its narrator took the Lord’s name in vain three times. He just laughed at it. And that was all that mattered. The service wasn’t meant to honor God. It was meant to entertain.

Kerry and Chris delivered a joint sermon, which had a broad general theme connected to the giant locomotive that stood behind them. The thesis was that we need to relinquish our need to control people and circumstances and instead let God direct our lives. But during the short sermon, Kerry’s wife said something rather unusual. It had to do with holy moments in our lives. It was as morally confused a statement as I have ever heard inside a place calling itself a church.

Without batting an eye, Chris Shook stated that all of the moments in our lives are equally holy no matter what we are doing because they were all created by God. So she insisted that we must learn to live in the moment, rather than seek a holy moment – because, once again, all moments are holy, and equally so.

To illustrate the error of Chris Shook’s statement, consider these “equally holy” moments, which were “all created by God”:
-A man sees a woman being raped and intervenes to stop the attack.

-A man sees a woman being raped and decides to join in.

-A man gives his wife a dozen roses.

-A man gives his wife herpes.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a saint.

-A man tells his grandmother she is a whore.

Obviously, not every moment in our lives is equally holy or God honoring “no matter what we are doing.” It matters very much what we are doing. Everyone knows that, including Chris’ husband Kerry who contradicted his wife about five minutes later. Near the end of their joint sermon, Kerry thanked people for coming to The Woodlands Church on “Christmas Eve, one of the holiest nights of the year.”

Put simply, there can be no holier or holiest night if every moment in our lives is equally holy. Either Kerry was right or his wife Chris was right. A cannot be not-A. The law of non-contradiction matters.

Every right thinking person knows that Kerry was right. His wife needed to sit down and let her husband the senior pastor deliver the correct message unencumbered by contradictions steeped in moral relativism. The culture teaches moral relativism. The church needs to correct it.

Of course, having Chris up there was the most important thing because it shows that The Woodlands Church really isn’t a Baptist Church after all. They let women preach and that shows they are culturally relevant. A little bad theology never hurt anyone.

In our holiest moments, we recognize that sound theology must defer to the secular doctrine of feminism. Some doctrines are holier than others. And relativism is culturally relevant even when it isn’t logically consistent.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

A Queer Need for Rejection

Whenever I write about the issue of First Amendment Freedom of Association, I defend the right of campus groups, not government administrators, to control their own belief structure and membership requirements. This often involves discussing real life cases with real life tension between religious groups and homosexual activists. This results in a slew of emails asking why a homosexual student would ever want to join a fundamentalist religious group. The short answer to the question is that homosexual activists don’t really want to join these organizations. Some want to use them for political gain before shutting them down altogether.

The homosexual rights movement is not a political movement seeking equality. It is a religious movement seeking affirmation. Conservative Christian organizations refuse to offer affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, they actually condemn it. So they become targets of homosexual activism.

Paradoxically, homosexual activists also target conservative Christians because being rejected by them is an important part of the process of attaining affirmation from the general public. When a homosexual activist tries to “join” such a group, it is often done with the following goals in mind:

1. Using discrimination claims to strengthen the genetic argument (and using the genetic argument to strengthen discrimination claims). It is fairly obvious why homosexuals want to assert that homosexuality is genetic. If they are programmed to behave in a certain way then homosexuality becomes less of a behavior and more of a status. This helps advance efforts to include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws, which are meant to give homosexuals equal power in relation to legitimate civil rights causes based upon immutable physical characteristics.

The only problem with the genetic argument is that it lacks supporting evidence. There is no more evidence for a gay gene than there is for Santa Claus or for legitimate feminist scholarship. The best the activist can do is to argue circumstantially that no one would choose a lifestyle that guarantees being subjected to discrimination. The argument is as silly as saying there must be an interracial dating gene because no one would choose to be subjected to discrimination for dating someone of another race.

But homosexual politics is not about logic. It is about end results. Activists need to be subjected to “discrimination” in order to advance their cause. So they join conservative Christian groups they do not like, engage in advocacy they know offends and disrupts the group, get kicked out of the group, and then claim to have been discriminated against. Finally, they lobby for stronger anti-discrimination rules that put them on a par with blacks and women.

2. Defaming the opposition. Homosexuals have a lot of options on campus. They can join a Unitarian Universalist group, they can join a United Methodist group, or they can start their own religious group that affirms homosexual conduct. But the very thought that someone on their campus disagrees with their lifestyle makes them angry. They simply cannot “coexist” (no matter what their bumper stickers say). This anger is probably due to awareness that they are engaging in a lifestyle that is both unnatural and immoral. So, if you can’t beat the Christians, just join them (and eventually destroy them). It’s always destroying, not joining, that motivates them.

After they join the group they don’t want to be in – and deny the stated principles of the group they never agreed with – the unable-to-coexist homosexual activist goes to the administration with a complaint. When the Christian group is expelled from campus under the anti-discrimination clause people ask “Why did the Christian group have to expel the homosexual?” Stated another way, the question becomes “Why can’t Christians coexist with homosexuals?”

In the end, the homosexual activist has made the group whose very existence he refuses to tolerate look intolerant. Another public relations victory!

3. Containing moral criticism. Of course, once the conservative Christian group is gone a clear message is sent to those who would dare to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. This exerts a powerful chilling effect on constitutionally protected religious expression.

But that isn’t the end of things. The homosexual rights movement continues to redefine homophobia in order to reduce any semblance of criticism directed toward the homosexual agenda. Isn’t this similar to what we have seen in the struggle for racial equality in America?

At first, the civil rights movement was about stopping lynching and racial segregation. After redefining racism (to include any disagreement with black leaders whatsoever) the movement has become little more than a mechanism used to suppress political speech. Racism went from being a social problem to being a political weapon. Redefining homophobia now serves the same function for the homosexual activist that redefining racism served for the civil rights activist.

But there is one crucial difference between the black civil rights movement and the homosexual rights movement. The former began by addressing real oppression before eventually (and incessantly) crying “wolf” as a means of punishing political speech. The latter began as an attack on free speech that becomes more pronounced with each and every concession.

The supreme irony of all this is that the NAACP is the organization that first won legal recognition of the right to freedom of association in 1958. They prevailed in a successful effort to keep the KKK from joining and destroying their organization. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the NAACP saying they could keep their membership lists secret and even keep out those who disagree with their beliefs.

Today, in an effort to attain moral equivalency with the NAACP, the homosexual rights movement is adopting one of the old tactics of the KKK. Politics makes strange bedfellows – particularly when it demands affirmation of what goes on in the bedroom.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags:

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Left State University

William Irvine is a professor of philosophy at Wright State University. He is one of the most courageous and honest professors in the country. Recently, he wrote a column concerning Wright State’s decision to invite the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to speak on his campus. Although he disagrees with many of Reverend Wright’s views, he publicly welcomed him to the campus because he believes that a university should be a marketplace of ideas. That view alone makes Irvine exceptional among today’s professoriate.

Irvine calls out his university for being “curiously one-sided in the speakers it brings to campus.” He notes that liberal speakers are routinely invited and that ultra-liberal speakers including Wright and Angela Davis are occasionally invited. No one seems to think it strange that avowed communists and those with significant criminal backgrounds are paid to speak on campus at considerable expense to the taxpayer. But politically conservative speakers are scarce and in the case of John McCain and Sarah Palin pay for the privilege of using campus facilities.

William Irvine is the rare professor willing to confront his colleagues’ hypocrisy and to publicly quote their silly defenses of rigid ideological conformity. When he confronted another professor with the idea that the university should invite conservative speakers his colleague responded by asking “You mean someone like Glenn Beck?” This kind of reaction shows how off-center our universities have become. What educated person could consider Glen Beck to be more extreme than Angela Davis?

Another professor reacted to Irvine’s reasonable suggestion by saying that it wouldn’t be a good idea to bring any Holocaust deniers to campus. The statement is an odd one indeed. It suggests that most conservatives refuse to accept the Holocaust as fact. I think liberal supporters of abortion are today’s true Holocaust deniers.

Professor Irvine has discovered something I have also discovered about the liberal professoriate; namely, that they see no reason for debate. In their eyes, the debate is over on all the major issues of the day. Of course, in their eyes they won all the major debates. Now, the reward for winning these debates is that we can proceed into the implementation phase. Of course, professors rarely use the word “implementation.” They just mindlessly repeat the word “diversity” like catatonics in padded cells.

Professor Irvine has also discovered that suggestions of bringing people like Thomas Sowell to campus are met with one pretty serious problem: Most liberal professors have never heard of Thomas Sowell.

Many years ago I suggested that Sowell should be required reading for college students. The reaction was amazing. According to one of my left-leaning colleagues – one who actually knows who Thomas Sowell is – the students don’t need to read Sowell because they were raised in conservative homes where those ideas were regularly espoused.

Notice the intellectual sleight of hand my “liberal” colleague employed. His argument is against intellectual diversity. The $64,000 question: Why oppose intellectual diversity? The answer: Since parents do it for eighteen years it is only fair that professors be allowed to do it for four years.

Professor Irvine has accurately identified a big problem in saying that it is now possible for students to get a college “education” without ever encountering a conservative professor. But the problem is even bigger than that. Most professors now believe it is desirable for students to get a college “education” without ever encountering a conservative professor. Their idea of “liberal education” is nothing more than a poorly disguised war on conservatism. This anti-conservative mindset is so entrenched that one of my “liberal” colleagues wants to remove the entire Cameron School of Business from UNC-Wilmington (where I teach). He explicitly stated that a school of business has “no business at a liberal university.” Between his puerile and antiquated lectures on Marxism he denies the existence of any liberal bias. This is the personification of self-indulgence and anti-intellectualism.

Professor William Irvine says that we do not have a fair hearing of conservative views on campus but instead “liberal professors galore, who will be happy to tell you what they imagine the conservative viewpoint on various issues must be and why these viewpoints are wrongheaded.” This statement is bull’s-eye accurate. And his follow-up statement is brilliant: “This is a pale substitute for a genuine political debate, but it is, on many campuses, what students have to settle for.”

Good for him. This debate should remain focused on the shortchanged students. College is not becoming less expensive. But it is becoming less relevant.

The public challenge issued by Professor Irvine is one that every professor, conservative or liberal, should issue to his university. That challenge comes in two parts: 1) Hire at least a few conservative professors. (I’m open to this idea. What better way to remedy the historical oppression of conservatives!). 2) If you cannot stomach hiring conservative professors then at least hire some conservative speakers.

Of course, today’s “liberal” professor will agree to neither of those suggestions. He uses affirmative action to promote his self-esteem not to promote “a diversity of perspectives.” And he uses the word “diversity” only to hide his deep-seated intellectual insecurity.

Our universities are no longer committed to revealing the truth. They are committed to suppressing the truth. And among those truths is that tolerance is not the academy’s most enduring intellectual achievement. It is its most transparent moral weakness.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Kermit the Dog

For decades, liberals have been playing upon people’s emotions by exploiting human tragedy for political gain. In recent months, that tendency has become more pronounced. Their attempt to use the suicides of eight confused young men to advance the homosexual agenda was disgraceful. Then there was the more recent attempt to use the Tucson shooting to advance a gun control agenda that will ultimately increase homicide and other crimes of violence. I think the time has come for conservatives to start making better use of tragedy for political gain.

There can be no better starting place for the exploitation of tragedy than the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Just Wednesday, he was charged with murder. He stands accused of delivering seven babies and then using scissors to kill each one of them. He was also charged with murder in the death of a woman who suffered an overdose of painkillers while awaiting an abortion.

The grand jury report in this case contains details that would make Margaret Sanger proud. The evidence indicates that numerous complaints about the conditions at Gosnell’s clinic were ignored. His clinic catered to West Philadelphia’s poor minorities – the kind of people Sanger referred to as human weeds that should be removed from the population.

Darwin proclaimed “survival of the fittest.” Sanger promoted survival of the whitest and survival of the richest. She would have been proud to learn that white women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area of his clinic. Prosecutors allege that this was because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints.

Kermit Gosnell was not the only one arrested and charged with numerous counts of murder. His wife was a cosmetologist who was supposed to cut hair. The allegation is that she cut babies instead.

Every crime has a motive and prosecutors have a motive in this case. It was money. Gosnell made millions of dollars performing thousands of dangerous abortions, many of them illegal late-term procedures. He is alleged to have cut costs by refusing to hire nurses and trained medical staff.

The abortions are alleged to have been “unsafe.” Of course abortions are never safe. There is one killed and one wounded in every case of abortion. Now the court must decide whether the abortions were legal. Since it appears that at least two women died from the procedures, while others suffered perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, the case seems ripe for a plea bargain. But prosecutors should resist the temptation. They should seek the maximum penalty in a televised trial.

Prosecutors have noted that Gosnell induced labor, then forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, and eighth months of pregnancy. He then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord. According to prosecutors, Gosnell referred to it as “snipping.” One problem for prosecutors is that Gosnell seems to have destroyed many of his medical files. That is not surprising. Abortion doctors do not keep their Hippocratic oaths. Why should they be expected to keep their records?

There appears to be a certain Hannibal Lecter quality to this case. Authorities have found bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses scattered throughout the offices of Kermit Gosnell. There were jars found containing severed feet that were kept for no apparent purpose. They were the kinds of trophies which, had they not been human, would have aroused the ire of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). But these were not people’s pets. They were people’s mistakes. They deserved no ethical treatment in the eyes of some.

Prosecutors in the Gosnell case have also alleged that he falsified ultrasound examinations and taught his staff to hold the probe in such a way that the fetus would look smaller. He is alleged to have joked with his staff saying one (fetus) was so large he could “walk me to the bus stop.”

How did Kermit Gosnell pass the annual inspections of his clinic, which opened in 1979? It was actually pretty easy since there have only been five inspections since 1979 and none since 1993.

Some defenders of abortion will point out that – although he earned his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University – Gosnell started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology. Some have already said that he does not know how to perform an abortion without risking killing someone. That trite observation ignores the obvious: No one has ever performed an abortion without actually killing someone.

In the wake of the Tucson shooting some have argued that we should limit semi-automatic handgun magazine capacity to ten. I think we should consider limiting abortion clinic waiting room capacity to ten. Or maybe we should have a seven-day cooling down period for those who have a passion for performing abortions.

However we decide to exploit this tragedy, the conservative slogan is fairly obvious: “Guns don’t kill people. Abortion doctors kill people.” We need to start printing tee shirts now.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags:

Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Welcome to Personal Responsibility 101

Back in 2002, I decided to join the fight against campus speech codes because I considered them to be the principal threat against liberty in the 21st Century. I was also concerned that Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that looking at our schools today is a good way to see what the nation will look like in twenty years. I knew that speech codes had to be defeated in order to avoid a situation in which citizens were easily deprived of their rights because they were never aware of them in the first place.

At the time I joined this fight, it seemed like every public university had an unconstitutional speech code. Today, that number is more like 67%. One of the main reasons for the improvement is the efforts of a group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. And now, FIRE has crafted an ingenious plan that promises to build on its momentum and make unconstitutional speech codes the exception, rather than the rule, at America’s public universities.

FIRE has put hundreds of university presidents and university attorneys on notice that their wallets could be hit if they violate the free speech rights of students on their campuses. What they are trying to do is to attack the use of qualified immunity, which is used to exempt administrators from personal liability for monetary damages.

By sending nearly 300 certified letters to public university administrators across the nation, they are directly challenging the most dangerous problem in higher education today; namely, the continued shielding of those who knowingly violate the First Amendment in defiance of well-established law.

It is bad enough that public university administrators have been shredding the First Amendment for decades in order to ensure that their own political, social, and religious views will be advanced without challenge. It is far worse that the taxpayers have been footing the bill when they have been caught doing so. But that is all about to change.

Recently, some judges have been deciding that college administrators are not shielded from personal liability in cases involving gross violations of the First Amendment. The case of Valdosta State University student Thomas Hayden Barnes is illustrative. Barnes was expelled in 2007 after he peacefully protested plans by then-President Ronald Zaccari to use $30 million in student activity fees to build two parking garages. The court decided the infringement was so gross that a reasonable administrator could not have been unaware of the illegality of the expulsion.

The recent spate of letters sent by FIRE will ensure that other similar rulings follow. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity only protects government officials from personal liability for monetary damages for violating constitutional rights if their actions do not violate “clearly established law” of which a reasonable person in their position would have known.

For years, public universities have argued that their speech codes did not violate clearly established law regarding students’ First Amendment rights. But for the past generation, we have seen one legal decision after another striking down these codes. Having seen registered letters informing them of the decisions, administrators will no longer be able to argue that “a reasonable person in their position” would not have known the law.

FIRE is now able to add another recent precedent to the long list of cases that will help undercut the doctrine of qualified immunity. In McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 struck down policies banning “offensive” or “unauthorized” signs as violations.

FIRE is also citing these important decisions in its letters:

DeJohn v. Temple University, where the Third Circuit invalidated a university sexual harassment policy for being overly broad and vague in violation of the First Amendment;

Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, where the Sixth Circuit declared a university discriminatory harassment policy to be obviously unconstitutional;

College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed, where a federal court enjoined enforcement of a university civility policy that placed the supposed right to be unoffended above the First Amendment.

Adam Kissel of FIRE summarizes the position of FIRE nicely when he states that the organization has found an appropriate balance between the carrot and stick approaches to dealing with university administrators. First, they offer online suggestions for public universities that have at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. The suggestions show them what they need to do to comply with the law.

But if they will not listen, there is strong language in these registered letters meant to awaken their conscience to their duty to obey the law. For example, FIRE says: “You must be aware that maintaining university policies that prohibit constitutionally protected expression is an unlawful deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for which university administrators may be sued in their individual capacities for punitive damages.”

The letter continues: “Given the sparkling clarity of the case law with regard to the unconstitutionality of speech codes at public universities, please be advised that claims of immunity from personal liability put forth by individual university administrators will likely be unsuccessful.”

The approach of FIRE will work in the same way that capitalism works better than socialism; namely, through reliance on private ownership and individual interest. In other words, it is a strategy that attaches real consequences to individuals with power, rather than to an esoteric and powerless collective.

Campus speech codes are no longer public property inherited by unknowing public servants. The speech codes now belong to those who oversee their maintenance. And they ignore them at their own peril.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Does Fort Worth Ever Cross Your Mind?

American communities are not what they used to be. Today’s college graduate changes jobs about a dozen times in his career. Since he changes jobs every few years he usually finds himself moving every few years. And since he figures he won’t be with his neighbors for long he seldom takes the time to get to know them.

It wasn’t that way when my family moved to Fort Worth in 1966. Four different welcoming committees came to visit from four different churches – all asking whether we had found a church home. Our first batch of mail was hand-delivered by the postman. When he rang the doorbell he introduced himself and asked “Have you found a church home yet?”

We eventually found a church but it was not the home of any of the four groups that came to visit. They must have all written off their visits as losses. But that was far from the truth. In fact, my mother was so moved by their hospitality that she began regular church visitation as soon as she joined a church. She kept doing so after we moved to Houston.

Soon after we arrived in Houston my mother developed a clever plan to keep from missing any new visitation opportunities in the area. She went down to the Clear Lake Water Authority and copied all of the new addresses of people who had just opened new accounts. This was all done by hand as it was before the era of word processing and personal computers.

In 1969, mom’s visitation paid particularly good dividends as she met her closest friend for life, Lisa Chambers. Our whole family became friends with their whole family. In fact, the friendships endure to this day. There were many more friendships formed in the process. We still get Christmas cards from people who joined the church for whom mom was visiting.

Of course, there are the untold numbers of people we never hear from but whose lives were affected nonetheless. My mother knew from experience to never write them off as losses. I hope by chance that one of them is reading these words today. If so, thanks so much for seeking us out and welcoming us when we moved to Fort Worth.

When my folks finally retired and moved to Huntsville there were fewer opportunities for visitation. There weren’t many people moving into the very small neighborhood in which they retired so mom stopped doing these visitations regularly. But, one day, a different kind of welcoming took place in their little neighborhood.

Mrs. Bishop was a very nice lady with a very ill husband. She also had a son with a criminal record. So the two police officers who lived in our neighborhood decided to pay the Bishops a visit right after they moved into their new home. The officer knocked on Mrs. Bishop’s door and boldly stated that for years there had been no crime in the little neighborhood. And they promised that if anything happened they would come looking for Mrs. Bishop’s son in a heartbeat.

One of the officers came over to our house after going to the Bishop’s. He reassured my mother that Mrs. Bishop had been warned and that, therefore, there would probably be no trouble in the neighborhood. The officer was proud of himself but my mother was horrified.

Next thing you know my mother went into the kitchen and found her favorite apple cake recipe. She didn’t always bring a cake when she went on a visitation. But she figured Mrs. Bishop really needed one after her rude reception in the neighborhood. Naturally, when my mother knocked on her door and gave Mrs. Bishop the cake she was thrilled.

Mom got a “thank you” card from Mrs. Bishop, which was a very rare occurrence. She later got a request for the recipe for that apple cake, which she gladly passed along. She also got a renewed interest in doing church visitations. I guess you could say she decided to come out of retirement.

When the next family moved into their little neighborhood mom cooked an apple cake and took it down to them. But, this time, something happened that had never happened before. The woman of the house looked at the cake and laughed and said “We don’t need another apple cake, Mrs. Adams.” She saw my mother’s puzzled look and then explained, “Mrs. Bishop brought us one this morning.”

Those of us who are conservative Christians are apt to blame the problems of the world on others. When we aren’t blaming Obama specifically, we are blaming socialism and socialists generally. But none of these things are really problems. They are symptoms of a larger problem; namely, that others are assuming the responsibilities that Christians have been neglecting for years.

We can’t change the world overnight. But we can change our neighborhoods today. The Recipe has been around for ages. We just have to keep sharing it with others.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Full Metal Yellow Jacket

Georgia Tech student Justin Myers recently had a very bad evening. He was expecting guests in his dorm room when four armed intruders greeted him at the door. They were able to steal merchandise and knock out two of the 19-year old student’s teeth for two principal reasons: 1) Armed robbers are always armed, and 2) Georgia Tech students are never allowed to have firearms on campus.

In the dorm complex where the robbery occurred, residents must swipe an access card to get through a set of outside doors. They also have a key for their six-bedroom suites. Finally, students are provided with a separate key for their bedrooms. But that isn’t enough to prevent such incidents from happening.

Only three of the four criminals wore masks but all four demonstrated how easily they could get inside the outside set of doors. Georgia Tech does not employ security guards in its dorms, which makes things easier for the potential intruder. Another weakness in dorm security is the automatic doors that delay in shutting to accommodate disabled students. Added to this is the human error associated with not watching the automatic door as other people follow students inside or trying to help out a person claiming to be a student who “forgot” his access card.

Georgia Tech crime statistics suggest that crime is down on campus in 2010. They showed two robberies in 2010 compared to four in 2009; 14 stolen cars this year compared to 38 in 2009; 49 thefts from vehicles in 2010 compared to 204 in 2009. Nonetheless, there are two serious problems to be gleaned from the statistics. First, such statistics rely on victim reporting and are, therefore, always underestimates of the true extent of crime. Second, the statistics showed that burglary is not declining at Tech. There were a whopping 58 campus burglaries for both 2009 and 2010.

Not all of the 58 burglaries were as traumatic as the one endured by Justin Myers. When he opened his bedroom door, the four men rushed him, pistol-whipped him and threw him to the floor kicking him repeatedly in the head. He was concerned for a time that they might shoot him. As they were demanding more money (and he was insisting he only had a few dollars in cash) things nearly spiraled out of control.

In the final analysis, only a 22-inch Panasonic television, a laptop computer, a cell phone, and $6 in cash were seized. Things could have been worse. The crazed intruders could have killed the unarmed student.

So far, Georgia Tech has not done what needs to be done in order to prevent this from happening again. The institute of technology merely put a buzzer on the stairwell door that sounds when the door is opened. I suppose the buzzer is meant to alert students to the necessity of hiding in their rooms and locking their doors.

Engineers and technicians are notorious for trying to make problems fit their solutions. In this case, they have lots of gadgets they would like to put to use to create a barrier between the motivated offender and the suitable target. They will be busy installing lights and buzzers to complement their computerized swipe card systems. But, to date, they have not invented a solution that fits the problem of the depravity of the human heart.

Fallen human beings will always find ways to get through barriers that stand between themselves and the object of their desires. If the barrier is raised with technology backed by good intentions it can often be razed by technology backed by bad intentions. So something must be done besides creating a barrier between the motivated offender and the desired target. That something is making the desired target less desirable.

It does not take a Georgia Tech engineering degree to understand that the unarmed citizen is the desired target of every armed offender. And it does not take any new technology to render the target undesirable. It only takes a gun.

The gun is really a very simple invention. Enough Georgia Tech students own guns that allowing students to keep them in their dorm rooms will substantially deter future intrusions of the sort experienced by Justin Myers. And, best of all, the solution will cost nothing to the taxpayers of the State of Georgia.

Georgia Tech needs to continue its tradition of finding complex solutions to complex problems. But that need not come at the expence of applying simple solutions to simple problems.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Dude Whines Like a Liberal

The Associated Press recently ran an article that should firmly establish the UNC system as the most ridiculous system of hire (pun intended) education in the United States of America. The article begins, in typical liberal fashion, by lauding a confused individual as a heroine when clearly he is not even a she.

According to the AP, “Nicole” actually spent over $100,000 on an attempted transition from male to female, including flying to, of all places, Thailand, for sexual reassignment surgery. (Please, no dirty Bangkok jokes.) After spending at whopping $20,000 on facial hair removal Nicole still had a problem: His voice still gave him away as a male (because he was and still is a male).

This alleged victim had to endure callers referring to him as “sir” when he answered the phone. It offended him badly because he wants to be referred to as ma’am – at least until he moves to California and is elected to the United States Senate. By then, he’ll be offended by ma’am, too – especially if it comes from one of those annoying military types.

So what was Nicole to do in order to find a “solution” to the “problem” of people correctly identifying his actual God-given gender? Well, even though he’s not an obese black woman (see my last column for details), he found a “solution” to the “problem” at UNCG, which ought to stand for the University of North Carolina at Gomorrah.

Despite the deep budget crisis, North Carolina taxpayers pay UNCG speech pathologists to teach transgender people how to speak like the people of the sex they are trying unsuccessfully to become. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn’t. We’re talking about UNC-Gomorrah.

The AP quoted the 57 year old man named Nicole as saying “To me, there’s nothing worse than seeing someone dressed as a woman, a beautiful woman … then she opens her mouth and she sounds like a sailor. It’s very off-putting for people.” I agree. In fact, I feel the same way every time I watch The Vagina Monologues.

Nicole took eight private classes at UNCG where he learned to redirect his voice through the front of his mouth instead of his throat or chest so that he sounds more like a woman – although, clearly, he is not. Each semester, speech pathologists at the UNCG School of Health and Human Performance take time off from addressing legitimate problems in order to teach about eight or so transgender people.

The classes for transgender people – those who want to live as the gender they weren’t assigned by God – teach a number of valuable lessons. For example, they teach that women use more adjectives, and gesture more with their hands and use their face more to express feelings. This is all so profound, isn’t it? I suppose that women who want to become men are taught the importance of breaking wind in public and coming home late for dinner.

Dean Hopper explained to the AP the importance of teaching men who want to be women to say girlie things when looking at art: “And women will say, ‘that’s a beautiful picture, I see a bubbling stream …’ they’ll really elaborate. Men will just say, ‘I see a house and a car.’ And then women add, ‘it’s just a fabulous-looking house.'”

At UNC-Gomorrah, transgender voice training students get handouts that compare male directions to those given by females. These intellectual giants inform the transgender students that women use landmarks, while men use a compass when they give directions. A landmark intellectual breakthrough, isn’t it?

Dean Hopper shares more of her intellectual genius by showing how women might give directions: “When you get to the red house with the blue shutters, take a right, go three miles. You’ll go past the store, you’ll see a cornfield. You’ll see a beautiful fire station. It’s new, you know, they just built it last week. Then you turn left.”

Dean Hopper adds that men might give directions like this: “Go west three miles, take a left at this road, go four miles, take a right.” Hopper fails to provide directions to the office of a UNCG Dean who doesn’t sound like a complete jackass.

But Dean Hopper does give some great advice if you are not exactly an old, rugged cross-dresser: “One thing we recommend, if you’ve never worn heels, probably your 40s and 50s are not a good time to start. You can get cute shoes that are flat. So why be awkward and start doing that? Especially if you’re large and have big bones, heels aren’t for you.”

“I never really thought of myself as a strong person,” Nicole told AP reporter Martha Waggoner. He added, “But now that I look back on what I’ve gone through, I think I’m a very strong person and a very courageous person for just standing up for myself and saying this is who I am and I have a right to be happy.”

The present state of higher education is the future state of our culture. Its promise is that every man has a right to be happy by becoming whatever he wants to become regardless of what he is. If we just put our faith in the gods of diversity they will deliver us from ourselves. And we won’t be mistaken for men any longer.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Fat Honkies Need Exercise, Too

Let me get something straight right now. I do not work for the University of North Carolina. I work for the North Carolina taxpayers. And, right now, they (we) are being bankrupted by a litany of divisive, politically correct, and unnecessary government “educational” programs. I use derisive quotes around the word “educational” because these programs teach nothing more than self-pity and imagined victimhood to those who are victims of nothing other than their own bad decisions.

Take, for instance, the new “fit and phat” program at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). This is an 8-week program that is “designed to give women of color a culturally competent place to become more educated about health and wellness.” In other words, it is another racially segregated UNC program designed to exclude white people in the name of tolerance and diversity.

According to the UNCG website, “fit and phat” will “integrate both educational sessions and exercise helping to adopt healthy, active lifestyles while attending college.” It adds the following justification for teaching that obesity is a social problem rather than an individual problem: “By addressing the sociocultural components of wellness, and needs of minority women at UNCG, we hope to see these women become advocates for their own health.”

In other words, UNCG hopes to indoctrinate black students even while they exercise. Why? To tell them that obesity is a form of institutional racism. UNCG’s hope to see black women become “advocates for their own health can roughly be translated as follows: “UNCG hopes to see black women become advocates for national health care.”

Of course, the UNCG statement could also be translated to read: “UNCG likes to create government programs to encourage the creation of more government programs.” Or it could mean: “Ultimately, UNCG administrators dream of a day when everyone else has a useless government job, too.” I guess the meaning varies based upon sociocultural factors. Maybe we need another government study to help us work thorough this.

UNCG tells us that “One of the most important reasons for women of color to be more active is the risk of cardiovascular disease.” This is earth-shattering isn’t it? Maybe they should add that one of the reasons to avoid unemployment is the risk of poverty. Or have they already met their quota of reinforcing negative stereotypes of black people?

But, to be fair, UNCG adds that “The rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) in these women are three to five times higher than the general US population (ACSM, 2008)” and that “People of any culture who are physically active are less likely to develop CAD.” I’m just glad they said “these women” instead of “those people.” That kind of misstep could have justified a whole new set of diversity training programs.

UNCG also tells us that “Differences in cultures can sometimes limit physical activity. Communities that can break down these barriers and find ways to accommodate different cultural exercises and activities can become healthier.” That’s a good point. Black people are always encouraged to avoid sports. We need to break down the barriers with another government program. Next, we’ll need a government program to help liberals understand my sarcasm.

The five goals of “fit and phat” are as follows: 1) Discuss cultural barriers of regular exercise specific to women of color, 2) Identify risk factors of cardiovascular disease and the increased risk of this group, 3) Encourage healthy habits to prevent risk factors for cardiovascular disease, 4) Develop strategies to adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle, 5) Identify community resources to help participants stay active.

All of this sounds great but why does UNCG have to add that a “fit and phat” participant must “Be a woman of color (African, Asian, Latino or Native American).” Would the presence of whites interfere with the bashing of white people in the name of diversity? Perhaps, but I’ll never be able to get in to find out. The door to the gymnasium says “colored people only.”

Even sillier is the requirement that “fit and phat” participants may not be “currently physically active.” In other words, the program seeks to teach people lacking initiative to blame “society” for their problems in a safe (read: racial segregated) environment. This is more than just another waste of taxpayer money. In a nutshell, it is the controlling philosophy of higher education.

The only thing more absurd than the programs themselves is the salaries paid to the administrators who create them. Just because their salaries are phat does not mean they are fit for “hire” education.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

They All Look Alike

The University of South Florida (USF) has reversed its denial of recognition to the USF Young Pakistani Student Cultural group. USF had argued that the Young Pakistanis were too “similar” to the Young Indian Student Cultural group on campus. After USF denied the Young Pakistani application for recognition, they came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

This case is disturbing because USF currently recognizes over 60 multicultural groups and no fewer than 20 engineering clubs. But, according to USF, the Pakistanis are considered too similar to Indians to be allowed on campus. The Pakistanis were initially told to simply join the Indian group because USF administrators were unable to discern a difference between the two groups.

The ordeal of the USF Young Pakistanis began in April 2010 when they submitted a constitution in order to gain official recognition. USF rejected the application in a September e-mail from the USF Student Programs Coordinator. She told the Young Pakistani Founding Chairman the following: “the purpose of your proposed organization may be fairly similar, if not the same, as another existing organization that is established at the USF Tampa campus.” She added “no other student organization can exist with the same or similar mission/purpose.”

By now, the reader of this column may be sensing some familiarity with the general argument employed by USF. A few years ago, the University of Miami refused to recognize Advocates for Conservative Thought (ACT), a student organization that was created for “the exposition and promotion of conservative principles and ideas.” The University of Miami argued that this decision was justified because it had previously recognized the College Republicans. FIRE also intervened in that case and ACT finally received official recognition. This was after four failed attempts without the help of FIRE.

By now, the reader of this column may also be sensing that it is a parody. USF did not ban the Pakistanis because they were similar to the Indians. USF banned a conservative group, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), because it was similar to a libertarian group, Young Americans for Liberty. The analogy is a good one given the extent to which conservatives and libertarians often fight over important issues.

Fortunately, FIRE wrote USF President Judy Genshaft in October in order to explain (slowly) that YAF and Young Americans for Liberty are indeed different in terms of their ideology and stated goals. FIRE also explained that USF’s policy is unconstitutional. Specifically, the policy gives administrators too much discretion to reject new student organizations. Such discretion fails the Supreme Court’s 40-year old requirement that government representatives use “narrow, objective, and definite standards” when subjecting First Amendment rights to a permit system. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969).

The good news is that USF Dean of Students Kevin Banks has responded to FIRE. And he has provisionally recognized YAF pending approval of the group’s constitution. The bad news is that USF has yet to revise its unconstitutional policy of preventing groups “with the same purpose/goals” from obtaining recognition.

FIRE Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel observed that, after the College Republicans, YAF is the largest and oldest conservative student organization in the United States. Given that fact, it seems a stretch to imagine that USF administrators really are ignorant and/or confused about how YAF differs from Young Americans for Liberty, which is only a couple of years old. After all, the folks who approve different student organizations should know something about how student organizations differ.

Maybe the great minds roaming the administrative halls of USF really failed to grasp the difference between these two groups. Maybe they still fail to grasp the larger differences between conservatives and libertarians. It is more likely, however, that USF administrators knew the groups were different from each other – and, more importantly, different from the administration. And because neither is liberal their collective campus influence had to be minimized.

The sad thing about all of this is that these administrators usually call themselves liberals. There used to be a difference between liberals and totalitarians. To be honest, I can’t tell the difference anymore.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

How I Joined a Black Sorority and Helped Fight Racism and Sexism

Author’s Note: Please take the time to vote in the local ABC affiliate’s First Amendment poll. The link is provided in paragraph ten.

Many African American Cultural Centers actually impede diversity by turning black students into racists and segregationists. And most of them make black students less tolerant by convincing them that they are somehow more enlightened and have special “perspective” simply because of their race. Recent events have convinced me that such arrogance is on the rise.

Last week, a black female graduate of our university called my office and left a message asking that I call her back regarding an “urgent matter.” I thought she had something important to say. I did not know at the time that I was going to hear a woman half my age lecture me on the importance of tolerance and diversity. But I’m glad she called because she set off a chain of media events that ended quite nicely for those of us who are opposed to racism and segregation.

When the black alumna called she said she had read my recent column “If I Were President.” She wanted to know whether I was really going to abolish the African American Center. At that point, I already knew we were in for an educational conversation. These days, college graduates are not well-versed in satire. As an art form, it is swiftly becoming extinct.

Things went downhill in our conversation when this college graduate told me that she became upset with my remarks about getting rid of the African American Center after she “saw that I was white”. My seventh Great Grandfather fought in the American Revolution in order to preserve our basic God-given rights. But this college graduate seemed to suggest that the expression of basic human rights is contingent upon race. The African American Center she frequented as an undergraduate did not seem to give her the ability to reflect and remedy her own possible racism.

After hearing her tell me that she “got all amped up” in response to my satire I made a big mistake. I explained that I would get rid of all the centers if I really were running for chancellor. The alumna’s response was predictable. She said “If you don’t like diversity you should go find another university.” When I pointed out her hypocrisy she replied that I did not need to be “getting all amped up and taking that tone with (her).”

Sitting in my office getting a lecture on tolerance from someone half my age was bad. When I heard her tell me not to take “that tone” with her I wondered “Could it possibly get any worse?” Well, yes it could. Next, she dropped this bombshell: “I will be in touch with your supervisors.” She even promised to drive in from out of town to set up personal meetings with them.

(Author’s Note: Ironically, both of the administrators she promised to contact are defendants in a First Amendment lawsuit pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Oral arguments in Adams v. UNCW are scheduled to begin on January 25th).

I got off the phone with the woman who did not like my tone (although at the time I did not think of that rhyme). Shortly after that, the local media decided to get involved. The TV cameras rolled out to UNCW’s African American Center in order to get this footage of a young diversity expert giving his take on the situation. Notice that he confidently asserts that my speech is way outside the mainstream – so much so that it is “inappropriate” to suggest that I represent the university.

The WWAY website (a local TV station) ran a poll, which I am thankful to have won by a ratio of eight-to-one. That is significant because my percentage of support greatly outnumbers the local and national white population. Yet this young diversity expert will probably never acknowledge that his own views are seen by most as “incredible, to say the least” and “inappropriate” at an institution of higher learning.

Note that the WWAY survey was worded in such a way as to steer the results in a certain direction. A better poll would have asked “Does Scott Pickey understand that the First Amendment only protects offensive speech because inoffensive speech does not need protection? Yes or No.” Or “Is Scott Pickey a) an objective journalist? Or, b) a political commentator like Mike Adams?” (Pickey is the reporter who wrote the online version of the story. The reporter handling the video portion of the story was completely objective).

The highlight of the news video is, of course, the portion featuring a black female student who tells us that we still need diversity centers because of the persistence of racism and sexism. But she made the statement while wearing big black sorority letters emblazoned on her blouse. In other words, while lecturing us on the persistence of racism and sexism she was touting her membership in an organization that limits its membership to blacks and women. The hypocrisy of asking the public to fund “solutions” to the “problems” she is exacerbating is simply staggering.

These students did not become so confused overnight. The cultivation of their sanctimonious hypocrisy has taken years of indoctrination in the centers of so-called diversity. Even if those centers are shut down the students will retain the right to express their segregationist views. Such views are protected by the First Amendment regardless of how offensive they may be.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

The Freakishness of Sociology

If you want to avoid seeing your 18-year-old turn into a freak within the first year of college, it’s best to make sure he, she, or it avoids taking a course in sociology. That is especially the case if your kid plans to attend Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont.

Professor Laurie Essig teaches a course at Middlebury called “The Sociology of Freakishness.” She justifies the course by saying that “American popular culture began with the freak show” and that “P.T. Barnum taught us that freaks are always made- not born.” Better not tell that to GLEAM (Gay & Lesbian Employees at Middlebury). They might argue that there’s such a thing as a “freak gene.” Next thing you know, the freaks will be entitled to their own “Freak Resource Center.”

According to Essig, a freak is “a performance or display of otherness for fun and profit.” She claims that she has designed her course in order to “explore the history of the freak in American culture as well as how our culture is still structured around the trope of the freak show.” She wants students to become “sociologists of freakishness” whose job it is “to ask what configurations of power are at play in the performance. How do gender, race, nationality, sexuality and class come into play and how are those forms of power translated into a performance of otherness that forces us to watch it over and over again?”

After I read that job description I began to worry that I might be one of those freaks they’re studying. After all, a lot of sociologists read my columns “over and over again,” seemingly “forced” to do so. Maybe, there’s a freak-watcher gene, even though “freaks are made – not born.” Maybe there’s even an intellectually consistent sociologist somewhere. Maybe the moon landing was faked. Maybe professional wrestling is real.

I want to take “The Sociology of Freakishness” if no other reason than to take in the excellent assigned readings. Among those are Catherine Dunn’s Geek Love and Rosemarie Thomson’s Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body.

There are also numerous lectures I found on the course syllabus for “The Sociology of Freakishness,” which make me want to enroll right now. For example, one lecture, scheduled for early October, requires students to read Suzan-Lori Parks’, “Venus.” Next, students ponder these profound intellectual questions: Can the freak be reclaimed as an active subject in her own enfreakment? Is that what Parks was trying to do? And why?

By mid-October, students are asked to read Lori Merish’s “Cuteness and Commodity Aesthetics,” and then watch Shirley Temple films in class. Finally, they are urged to bring to class “some contemporary examples of Children as Freaks.”

Shortly thereafter, students read Cecile Lindsay’s, “Bodybuilding: A Postmodern Freak Show,” and Cyril Siorat’s, “Beyond Modern Primitivism”, from the book Tattoo. They are then asked to “Come to class with examples of bodily freaks in our own culture- for example, tattooing, piercing, ear stretching.” They are then asked to “Think about the relationship between bodily freaks and notions of the ‘primitive.’” That’s some deep thinking to require of sociology students.

By the end of October, students read the professor’s own writing, specifically “Plasticity: On the Unexpected Uses of Plastic Surgery”. They are then asked to discuss this profound question: When is surgery “necessary” and when is it “freakish”?

In an early November class meeting, students are asked to “Think about contemporary manifestations of blackface as a genre of the freak show.” In order to provide a real balance to the class, students are then encouraged to study whiteface. In other words, they read about Michael Jackson. The reading is David D. Yuan’s, “The Celebrity Freak: Michael Jackson’s Grotesque Glory.”

Students are then asked to “Do some research on the most recent Jackson trials and Michael Jackson as a racial and sexual freak.” It is unclear whether students are asked to visit Never-land Ranch or attend a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. But, then again, calling the NAMBLA meeting a “freak show” might offend GLEAM. So many victims, so little time!

Just before Thanksgiving, students are introduced to a lecture on “YouTube, MySpace, and the importance of self-enfreakment.” They are told to find some examples in new media of freakishness. When they return from break, students get to read the professor’s own essay, “The Pleasure of Freaks.” This all takes place within a lecture titled “Does Pop Culture Need Freaks?”

I don’t know about “pop culture” but academia doesn’t need any more freaks. We just need to put bars on the professors’ windows and charge the public to peer inside their offices. Spectators should be allowed to toss them an occasional peanut or banana.

Eventually, we’ll need to pay someone to clean up the stuff that gathers in their cages. The freaks may call it scholarship. But it smells like crap to me.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Coming Home

Dear Eric:

There’s nothing quite like the feeling of coming home for Christmas every year. When you walk in the door and smell the candles and the aroma coming from the oven you know you’re home again. And the memories come flooding in until you feel like you were never really gone.

The closest I come to the experience of coming home is the feeling I get every time I walk into the local Christian bookstore. The smell of new books and the aroma from the café reminds me of the best year of my life.

In 2000, I embarked on an intellectual journey, which would lead back to a place where I had been most happy as a child. It began on the eve of New Year’s Eve on death row in Huntsville, Texas. The Lord used my dad to arrange an interview with a murderer and rapist who was just 13 days away from execution.

There was so much said that day but nothing as profound as the inmate’s garbled recitation of John 3:16. He was mentally challenged to say the least. But he learned to read and in 20 years sitting on death row he managed to get through the Bible. Like Carl in the movie Sling Blade there were probably few portions of the Bible that he really understood.

I was embarrassed that a man with a mind as weak as that death row inmate had read the Bible and I had not. So I snuck (or “sneaked” if you’re a Yankee) into Barnes and Noble to buy a copy of the King James Version. I also read some works by Colson that led me to other works. Eventually, I started reading heavily from books I found at the aforementioned Christian book store. The more I read, the more I wanted to read. It was a glorious year of discovery.

I doubt you’ll have time to devour all the books I devoured that year. But I’ve included five favorites I hope you’ll consider. And I’ve published this letter in column form so that others might consider them, too.

1. The Message, by Eugene Peterson. Don’t start with the King James Version like I did. Find a readable paraphrase for your first trip through the Bible. The journey of reading the Bible from cover to cover will be exhilarating. You’ll have so many questions answered when you finally read the world’s greatest book. But others will arise and you’ll want to read it again. When you do re-read the Bible try a more literal translation. I recommend the NASB version of the John MacArthur Study Bible.

2. How Now Shall We Live, by Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey. This may be the best book (besides the Bible) that I have ever read. One can use this book to begin applying what one learns in the Bible to important contemporary issues. The “recommend readings” section at the end is worth the price of the book. It is not likely that you’ll want to stop reading after you’ve finished this book. Please, follow up with Nancy’s Total Truth if you find that your thirst is not quite quenched.

3. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. When I was younger I held many ridiculous beliefs. Among them was the notion that Jesus was a great moral teacher though not divine. That is simply absurd. Jesus claimed to be God. If he wasn’t then he was a liar, which would disqualify Him from being a great moral teacher. Reading Lewis helped me get past such non-sense. This book also provides a strong argument for the existence of an absolute moral code. Reading this book convinced me that most self-proclaimed atheists really aren’t atheists. They believe in God and are angry at Him because they think He is unjust. Read it for yourself and tell me what you think. If you want something a little shorter and more digestible, I would recommend More Than a Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. He makes many of the same points and writes in a very clear and cogent manner.

4. Christian Apologetics, by Norm Geisler. I thought this was a great apologetic when I read it ten years ago. But some may want to go with the more recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, which Geisler co-wrote with my good friend Frank Turek. The latter selection has a special place in my heart since a friend of mine read it thrice and converted to Christianity while he was dying (and did not yet know he was dying).

The other day when I was doing a radio show a caller phoned in and informed me that my arguments could not be believed because I was making statements that had not been verified by scientific experimentation. He explained “No statement can be considered true unless subjected to scientific experimentation.” I replied, “Was that statement subjected to scientific experimentation?” Pause. “Well, then, I guess it isn’t true.”

If you read Geisler and Turek you’ll soon start saying things that make the atheist pause. And hopefully they’ll think more about the faith component that underlies their philosophical assumptions.

5. Scaling the Secular City, by J.P. Moreland. I read this book in just a couple of days and loved every page of it. Since then, I have met J.P. and have heard him lecture several times. On the basis of those lectures I decided to read another of his books called Love God With All Your Mind. I liked it even more, especially after I had the following exchange with a student:

Student: Dr. Adams, who is to say what’s right or wrong? How can we impose our morals on others? Your truth might not be the same as my truth.

Dr. Adams: May I borrow your blackberry. (Student hands over blackberry). Thanks. I’ve always wanted one of those and I’m not giving it back. And don’t tell me petty larceny is wrong. Don’t impose your morals on me. My truth is not the same as your truth. In fact, I think petty larceny is a virtue. (Student smiles and Dr. Adams hands him his blackberry). Next time someone says “don’t try to impose your morals on me” or “your truth isn’t the same as my truth” just do to him what I did to you. (Student smiles and nods in agreement).

I didn’t steal the blackberry from that kid. But I did steal the example from J.P. Moreland. That’s why you should read his book. But, please, don’t steal it from the bookstore. That would be objectively wrong.

I hope you tell your loved ones to give you some of these books for Christmas. That way, when you arrive at home you’ll begin to prepare your heart and mind for an even greater homecoming.

I should know about this, Eric. I wandered for seventeen years. But now I’ve made my way back home. The painful memories are fading and now it feels like I was never really gone.

Disclaimer: Frank Turek, Norm Geisler, and J.P. Moreland all teach at Summit Ministries (see www.Summit.org) along with Mike Adams. They did not pay him to promote any of these books. But they probably should have!

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com