bias, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, fraud, news media, propaganda, scandal, tragedy

CNN: Michael Brown autopsy “expert” may be a fraud

NOVEMBER 29, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Readers may not know Shawn Parcells’ name, but those who have followed the Michael Brown case know his work. Parcells worked with the Brown family and pathologist Michael Baden on a private autopsy, the results of which Parcells claimed demonstrated that Brown had been (a) shot in the back and (b) shot with his hands in the air in a position of surrender. Both claims were later discredited by the official autopsy and witness accounts to the grand jury that heard the case, but not before the claims made by Parcells on a number of news shows fueled protests and unrest across the nation.

So who is “Professor” Shawn Parcells? He’s not a professor, he’s not a doctor, and he’s not qualified to work unassisted on autopsies either, as CNN discovered. In fact, his interference in another case allowed a murderer to go free, and the college at which he claims adjunct status says they never hired him in that capacity. Is Shawn Parcells just a remarkable auto-didact, or “a very good con artist” as law enforcement considers him (via Chuck Lane)?

Parcells doesn’t claim to have any specific license or certification to do the work he does. He knows how to do autopsies from “on-the-job training,” watching pathologists and assisting them at various morgues, he said. Sometimes he’s been paid for this work and sometimes he wasn’t, he added.

“To take out organs and to cut open a body, you don’t need to be a pathologist,” he said. “Come to an autopsy. I think when you see what I do, you’ll realize that I’m not just making this stuff up out of blue, thin air.”

He certainly sounded knowledgeable and authoritative on August 18 when he presented the findings of the Michael Brown autopsy to a nationally televised news conference.

Baden, who conducted the autopsy, spoke first, and then introduced Parcells, saying he “has been instrumental in the autopsy evaluation.”

“First of all, I’m Professor Shawn Parcells,” Parcells said as he stood to address the reporters.

On his LinkedIn page and to CNN, Parcells said he’s an adjunct professor at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas — but a spokeswoman for the university told CNN that’s not true.

“(Parcells) is not now and has never been a member of the Washburn University faculty,” university spokeswoman Michaela Saunders wrote in an email to CNN, adding that at one point, Parcells spoke without receiving pay to two groups of nursing students about the role of a pathologist’s assistant and gave a PowerPoint presentation and answered students’ questions.

Let’s leave the questions of how Parcells keeps getting contracts aside for the moment. Let’s even set aside how pop pathologist Michael Baden allowed Parcells to take over the show. How did the media miss this story for so long? As CNN notes, Parcells had a rather full dance card with the national media for quite a while, promoting what turned out to be an erroneous narrative — one on which Robert McCulloch heaped considerable scorn last week. Why did no one vet Parcells before putting him on the air? His findings were certainly controversial and provocative, yet it seems that not one media outlet did any checking on the background of their source for their conclusions.

The easiest conclusion one can reach is that the media didn’t feel the need to check into Parcells’ background and claims because he gave them the narrative that they wanted to sell. If that’s the case, then Parcells wasn’t the one running the con.

original article: CNN: Michael Brown autopsy “expert” may be a fraud

bias, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, fraud, news media, propaganda, scandal, tragedy

bias, bigotry, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, free speech, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy

Marquette University teacher stifles free speech

November 22, 2014 by Todd Starnes

Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professorand was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.

The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation — without her permission.

“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

“Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.

Abbate disagreed.

“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

The student said he did not know the answer to her question.

“Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.

At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

“Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class]  to make homophobic comments.”

The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic.

“This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals,” he said. “Because they’re homosexual, I can’t have my opinions?”

And that’s when the teacher dropped the bombshell.

“You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”

So the student dropped the class.

“I understand that other people have very different views than I do and that’s understandable,” the student told me. “But when a student is not allowed to have an open discussion in a discussion-type class on a specific issue because it’s regarded as homophobic – that really irks me.”

Marquette Professor John McAdams, who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, accused Abbate of using a tactic “typical among liberals now.”

“Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” he wrote.

The student told me he filed a complaint – but he said university officials dismissed his concerns.

McAdams wrote that he was not surprised because the university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor.

“Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university,” he wrote. “And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

A university spokesman told me they were viewing “both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member.”

“We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly,” the spokesman told me. “In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.”

Abbate told the website Inside Higher Ed that the “class discussion was not meant to be an opportunity for students to express their personal beliefs about political issues.”

She said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.”

“It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty,” she told Inside Higher Ed.

The only thing toxic at Marquette are teachers who oppose Catholic doctrine and try to silence dissenting opinions.

I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.

I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions.

Nevertheless, the student’s behavior does not excuse Marquette University’s successful attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas.

So let’s review — an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.

I’m not a Catholic – but it seems to me Marquette University is one of those CINO schools – Catholic in Name Only.

original article: Teacher to student: If you don’t support gay marriage, drop my class

bias, bigotry, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, free speech, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy

bias, children, diplomacy, diversity, education, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, indoctrination, islam, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, scandal, terrorism, video

The Muslim Brotherhood in American Schools

November 22, 2014 by Tim Brown

Brigitte Gabriel spoke earlier this year at First Conservative Baptist Church and informed the people there that the Muslim Brotherhood is in the process of infiltrating American public schools, just as they have the United States federal government.

Gabriel, author of two New York Times Best Sellers, Because They Hate and They Must Be Stopped, and founder of Act for America, said that she is passionate about the subject because it has affected her life. Ms. Gabriel is an immigrant, who came to America after her home country of Lebanon (which was the only majority Christian country in the Middle East) was lost to fundamentalist Islam during the Lebanese Civil War.

In the few minutes that she speaks in the video, Gabriel provides the evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated America’s school. She also warns that they will stop at nothing short of total domination of all non-Muslims countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is the oldest Islamic terrorist organization in the world. There are 70 offshoot organizations which have sprouted from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas. This is exactly why Hamas-CAIR was recently branded an Islamic terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

Though we have been told that the attacks by Al-Qaeda were spawned due to America’s interference in the Middle East and it partnering with Israel, one must understand that Israel was not around in 1928. Yet, according to Brigitte Gabriel, the Muslim Brotherhood was established to begin the new Islamic Caliphate. As part of that goal (referred to in counter terrorist circles as “The Project”), the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the United States in order to neuter it on the world stage and ultimately to destroy it. This is right in line with the aspirations of one Barack Hussein Obama as well.

Gabriel went on to talk about the “behind the scenes” efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to maintain an appearance of “moderation” with the goal of destroying Western society and establishing the Islamic State in America. This includes, but isn’t limited to: Using our liberties against us, using “buzzwords,” establishing non-profit and human rights organizations.

In referencing the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals for America, Gabriel read the section of their goals regarding settlement, which came from the Holy Land Foundation trial.

According to the document, Muslims must see their efforts in America as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

She then picks up the issue of education and how it is used to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals. Among those goals of education, a Virginia-based Turkish Islamist‘s charter schools are at the top of the list in the Islamic infiltration of America. For a full explanation, pickup at the 11:20 mark in the video.

original article: The Muslim Brotherhood in American Schools

bias, children, diplomacy, diversity, education, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, indoctrination, islam, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, scandal, terrorism, video

bias, censorship, discrimination, diversity, education, first amendment, free speech, funding, government, hypocrisy, ideology, immigration, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, scandal

Va. Tech yanks funding for conservative group over Bay Buchanan immigration speech

November 20, 2014 by Kyle Rothenberg

A conservative group at Virginia Tech is fighting back after a student-run group pulled its funding following a speech on illegal immigration by former Treasury Secretary Bay Buchanan.

Young Americans for Freedom, which co-sponsored the speech by the conservative pundit and sister of former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan with the school’s College Republicans, is appealing a decision made by the university’s Student Budget Board. The board denied the group funding for an already-scheduled speech by (former GOP presidential candidate) Herman Cain, as well as all other aid for the rest of the year.

“It is an outrageous effort on the part of these students to control speech to determine what is said and how it’s said,” said Buchanan, who described the standing-room-only Oct. 28 event as featuring spirited debate by both sides. “It is a great right to be able to speak our mind and make our arguments passionately and listen to the other side.”

“It is an outrageous effort on the part of these students to control speech to determine what is said and how it’s said.”- Bay Buchanan

But the trouble began before the event, when a flyer circulated by YAF touting Buchanan’s apperance and alluding to an “alien invasion” caught the attention of Latino groups on campus. The Latino Association of Student Organizations reacted angrily on its Facebook page.

“The combination of language and imagery is offensive, insensitive and a blatant act of disrespect towards the immigrant community and the Virginia Tech community at large,” read a statement published on the page.

The College Republicans sided with LASO on the flyer and created a new one, according to Lauren McCue, chairwoman of Virginia Tech’s Young Americans for Freedom Chapter.

Max Frischman, chairman of the Student Budget Board, did not respond to a request for an interview. But the faculty advisor for the Budget Board, Steve Burrell, said in an e-mail that YAF pulled a bait and switch.

“The board was extremely frustrated with the organization regarding the Bay Buchanan event since the written and verbal description of the event was very different from what was advertised as the event,” Burrell said. “So the board unanimously voted to deny funding.”

McCue said the funding cut decision will also affect future conservative voices from speaking at the school, including an appearance by Cain.

“They had approved it for $5,000 but ever since this event, they said they’re restricting our funding effective immediately for the next two semesters,” said McCue. “They were kind of saying well, how do we know he’s not going to speak on something that’s controversial? We can’t hold you guys accountable anymore. That’s why we’re not going to fund you.”

Buchanan believes the decision was a violation of the First Amendment and claimed that after the debate, a Latino student told her he thought it was “a great debate,” although he did not like the first flyer.

“I told him it was provocative,” Buchanan said. “You want people to come. You want to provoke them into coming and speaking for themselves. Well, you guys did it. You did a great job.”

Virginia Tech Vice President of University Relations Lawrence Hincker said he strongly recommends that the student group, YAF, appeal the decision by the Student Budget Board — which makes decisions on their own and are independent from the University. But Virginia Tech has the final say in this matter after an appeal is made by YAF, according to Hincker.

“Clearly, the University has the authority to allocate those funds, because the monies were given to the Student Budget Board. So can the University overturn a decision? The answer is yes. The University finds this concerning…big universities, like Virginia Tech, strongly encourage student leadership development.”

original article: Va. Tech yanks funding for conservative group over Bay Buchanan immigration speech

bias, censorship, discrimination, diversity, education, first amendment, free speech, funding, government, hypocrisy, ideology, immigration, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, scandal

bias, children, constitution, education, freedom, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, second amendment

Common Core: You have rights ‘in certain situations’

November 17, 2014 by Dave Jolly

Brad McQueen is a public school teacher in Tucson, Arizona. He was also a Common Core insider who became aware of the dangers of curriculum. Those dangers so alarmed McQueen that he wrote the anti-Common Core book The Cult of Common Core: Obama’s Final Solution for Your Child’s Mind and Our Country’s Exceptionalism.

One day recently, he discovered that a US Constitution/Bill of Rights poster that hung in his classroom was not teaching the truth. The poster, created by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education had paraphrased the Second Amendment in such a way as to teach a lie. The poster read:

“You have the constitutional right to, in certain situations, ‘keep and bear arms’ without government interference.”

Note that whoever wrote the poster stated ‘in certain situations’ which is nowhere stated in the Second Amendment or Constitution. McQueen goes on to explain that there is a purposeful effort to teach specific liberal concepts in today’s public education instead of the truth.

McQueen wrote:

“When I was working on the Common Core test last year, the PARCC exam, I was told that the new Common Core way of writing and thinking demands that kids cite the ‘experts’ in the texts that are presented to them on the exam when writing their essays and not rely on their own thinking or opinions.”
“I was told that if they wrote about their own opinions or their own thinking that they would fail the Common Core test.”

“I was also told that they expected that teachers would mimic this new Common Core way of writing and thinking in their classroom instruction. The true goal of Common Core is to have kids parrot back talking points, determined by the administration in power no doubt, rather than to truly think for themselves.”

“What if a teacher used the ‘expert’ opinion put forth on the erroneous U.S. Constitution poster I have in my classroom? With a few small changes in wording to our founding documents kids would be presented with quite a different view of their rights guaranteed in those same documents.”

“Kids instructed in the Common Core method of thinking and writing would know that they had better parrot back the ‘experts’ on that poster, or the experts in their Common Core aligned textbooks as their grades, their test scores, and their teachers’ paychecks may depend on their mastery of this skill.”

“Luckily, I caught the bogus wording of the Second Amendment on the class poster and my class and I compared the poster’s wording to the original document, the U.S. Constitution.”

“The kids in my class were furious and I liked that they were furious. It shows that our kids are still independent thinkers. However, as Common Core takes hold that will all be changing soon and perhaps in just one generation.”

Like McQueen, others have been warning that Common Core is more interested in training students to believe and think the way liberals want them to think and believe than they are in teaching the truths. It is nothing more than a socialist propaganda brainwashing tool designed to raise a generation of good socialist comrades. That’s why it is so important to repeal and replace Common Core in every state as soon as possible before it’s too late. As McQueen said, it could happen in just one generation and your kids and grandkids are that generation being targeted.

original article: Common Core Insider Teacher Warns of Common Core Brainwashing

bias, children, constitution, education, freedom, government, gun rights, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, second amendment

bureaucracy, capitalism, economics, economy, government, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, poverty, progressive, public policy, regulation, socialism, tragedy, unintended consequences

Raising The Minimum Wage Hurts The Most Vulnerable

November 13,2014 by Elise Hilton

If you’re blessed, your job is more than just a paycheck. It’s a structure for your life, it’s a place of friendship and camaraderie, and a sense of purpose. At least, it was for Stacy Osborn.

Osborn had been working at Tastes of Life, a Hillsdale, MI restaurant that also supported a residential program, Life Challenge of Michigan. The restaurant was owned by Pastor Jack Mosley and his wife, Linda.

Mosley explained that, unlike a typical business that might fire a chef with a hot temper “who breaks dishes,” Tastes of Life managers were more long-suffering and wanted to help employees polish their life skills.

“Life has issues,” Mosley said. “This was a place to shore them up, and help them cope and get through.”

So why isn’t Osborn working there anymore? Because Tastes of Life couldn’t afford to stay open after the state of Michigan raised its minimum wage. Mosley said he figured he’d have to bring in 200 more customers a week in order to stay open.

Michigan unions threatened they’d sponsor a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. To keep the question off the ballot, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a compromise. Before September 1, 2014, the minimum wage in Michigan for regular employees was $7.40 and for tipped workers was $2.65. The new law raised the wage to $8.15 and $3.10, respectively. It will increase incrementally until 2018, when it will be $9.25 and $3.52.

“I did the math and realized I would need 200 more customers a week to stay open,” Mosley said.

That, accompanied by the fact that many of their customers go south for the winter and food prices have risen dramatically, forced Mosley to close doors. Twelve people lost their jobs.

Other businesses in the area have put a freeze on hiring and have raised prices in order to compensate for the minimum wage hike. Some, like the Mosleys, simply can’t compete. And that means those with the most to lose are left with fewer options. Some lose their jobs. Those who keep their jobs have a pay increase, but may have their hours cut. They also have to deal with the increase in the cost of consumer goods that comes along with the minimum wage hike.

Tell us again, who was the minimum wage hike supposed to help?

original article: In Michigan, Raising The Minimum Wage Hurts The Most Vulnerable

Read “Low-Income Workers: Raising The Minimum Wage Ruined Our Lives” at The Federalist.

bureaucracy, capitalism, economics, economy, government, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, poverty, progressive, public policy, regulation, socialism, tragedy, unintended consequences

campaign, elections, ideology, philosophy, politics, president, Republicans

Dear GOP, I’m not sure you actually want to win in 2016

So the GOP won big in November’s mid term elections. Well, technically, you did. In reality, the Obama agenda lost big.

After 6 years of trying Obama’s extreme left ideology the American people repudiated his policies earlier this month. You establishment GOP folks did exactly what you needed to do to exploit these troubling times for the Democrats: stay out of their way. It’s a classic Napoleonic tactic: when you see your enemy making a mistake, don’t interrupt him. And you did this quite well. Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing you’ve done well politically for some time now.

I’m just an ordinary citizen, I’m not a political insider. But I’m amazed at how clueless you political professionals seem to be.

In 2008 you offered up John McCain (the main stream media’s favorite GOP option) as the Republican presidential candidate, thinking he actually had a chance. Realizing he is a progressive Republican, it eventually occurred to you that he needed some conservative credibility, so you found a Washington outsider to join the presidential ticket. She didn’t sound like the typical well polished professional liar we come to expect from the Washington establishment. It was refreshing. But because most in the news media want a polished professional liar lying to them they ridiculed Sarah Palin to no end, and still criticize her to this day. You didn’t defend her, you helped your political opponents destroy her. You treated Palin as a liability, when in fact she is the only reason McCain’s chances of winning the 2008 election were anywhere near the realm of possible. Progressive (or “Moderate” as you like to call them) Republicans are diet Democrats. You offered liberal lite because you thought the American people were inclined to vote for progressive ideals. That didn’t work out so well for you. And instead of blaming yourselves for the stupid decision of allowing the media to choose a progressive GOP candidate for you, you blame the 2008 defeat on Palin and grassroots conservatives.

In 2012 it seems you tried a little harder to sell yourselves as a conservative party. But you offered up the guy credited with Romneycare, the Massachusettes health care policy that supposedly inspired Obamacare (which incidentally, appears to be the primary reason Democrats lost so badly in Congress just recently). You might have actually won that election, but you can’t always account for everything, such as natural disasters that seem to help Obama win a second time. But even with a supposedly more conservative candidate in 2012, for years now you have made it abundantly clear you don’t want to be a conservative party.

What similar problems do we find in these two elections? I’ll address only one right now. You treat a hostile news media, which votes overwhelmingly for Democrats, as reliable news. When the news media portray the Tea Party as extreme or racist, you go along with it. When alternative media expose racism and extremism among Democrats, but the main stream press avoids the story, you likewise seem uninterested. When the news media caste an issue in a light favorable to president Obama (no matter how absurd the logical distortion is or how false it is) you seem to go with the premise they establish, and allow them to define the argument. When the news media constantly ridicule and mock conservatives, you fail miserably at defending us – if you try at all.

You’ve made it clear you don’t want conservatives in the GOP. You want progressives. You even went so far as to support Thad Cochran’s efforts to act like a Democrat in the primary election earlier this year, race baiting ads and all. Some of you even made personal donations to Cochran’s campaign against conservative Chris McDaniel, knowing Cochran was trying to gain Democrat votes for the primary election, and knowing full well those same African Americans would NOT vote for him in the general election. There is no doubt among grassroots conservatives that the Washington establishment (the political class) harbors disdain for conservative America, the part of America that DOESN’T think increasing regulations and taxes and government dependency equal freedom.

And now we are hearing talk about progressive Republican candidates for 2016. For example, I’m not quite sure what to make of the fact that Jeb Bush thinks he has a chance to win the presidency. While he seems to hold a reasonable position on Obamacare, he is a strong supporter of Common Core, which appears to be doing to public education what Obamacare is doing to health care. He also supports amnesty for illegal aliens and taking more money away from hard working Americans by raising taxes. And he’s just one of many possible GOP candidates with strong leanings toward an expansion of government with the stink of progressive meddling in people’s lives. Oh, with the intent to “help” us, of course.

What concerns me is that the GOP seems aimless, even soulless. Not as soulless as Democrats, who seem to want government to practice compassion so ordinary folk don’t have to. No, the GOP is soulless because it wants to cut out its conservative core and replace it with diet Democrats. Because casting the GOP as diet Democrat has worked so well in recent elections, I guess. Is this still the philosophy behind the GOP? Are the GOP establishment really this out of touch with reality and with the American people? Do you really think you’ll win elections by selling yourself to the political left and the political right as liberal lite? If you do that, I’m staying home in the 2016 elections. Well, there may be a way to get me to the polls that day.

I would gladly vote for Dr. Ben Carson for president. He is a remarkable man, and humble, and compassionate. He is the face of American conservatism. It’s true, he is not the polished professional liar so many in politics and the news media clearly want. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all the more reason to vote for him. But he may be too kind for politics. If Dr. Carson is to truly have a chance of winning the presidency in 2016 he would need a lion for a VP. Not a wishy washy “moderate” Republican who tries not to offend anyone. The GOP VP candidate will need to be a fierce fighter for common sense, the rule of law, and small government. Hey, there’s your “moderate” element, a moderate dose of government instead of the overdose we’ve been hit with for decades. Who can fit that bill? Well possibly more than one, but I think one in particular would be the best choice. Imagine seeing this ad all over America:

Carson Gowdy 2016

Congressman Trey Gowdy is a lion. He fights for common sense relentlessly and he fights against corruption. That’s what America desperately needs. We need someone who will fight for what is good and true, for freedom, for integrity. We need someone who will attack lies with the truth, and attack hard enough to make the liars themselves realize how idiotic they look for telling such blatant lies in the first place. We don’t need more moderates.

I say this because I think you GOP establishment professionals have lost your way. You seem to think government is the solution to all of life’s problems, just like the Democrat party thinks. You seem to believe a political candidate will save America, just like Democrats do. I think Dr. Carson understands it is the American people who make America work, not the federal social safety net. Dr. Carson seems the kind of man who will release the government shackles put on the people for decades and unleash the American spirit that has been trapped in a state of dependency. I believe Dr. Carson understands we the people can and will take better care of each other than the nanny state can. Dr. Carson wants to set us free in a country where we can’t even practice compassion without government approval anymore. And Congressman Gowdy can defend him when he is attacked for trying to set us free, because I don’t think you will.

Since you in the political class seem to think a political solution is what America needs, I suggest a Carson/Gowdy ticket for 2016. Instead of trying to remake America (a prospect which requires first tearing it down) President Carson and Vice President Gowdy would allow we the people to rebuild it.

If the GOP allows the main stream media to select a liberal lite candidate for the Republicans in 2016 I will see no difference between the GOP and the Democrats. If the GOP helps the main stream media or the Democrats attack Dr. Carson, I will see no difference between you and them. If the best the GOP has to offer is the pathetic argument that walking toward serfdom is better than sprinting, I will see no difference between the elephant and the ass. If I see no difference, why should I vote for you?

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, censorship, corruption, discrimination, education, first amendment, freedom, government, ideology, intolerance, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, public policy, religion, scandal

High School Bans Students From Holding Prayer Group in Free Time

November 11, 2014 by Kelsey Harkness

A Colorado high school banned a group of students from praying, singing Christian songs, and discussing religious topics in their free time.

Citing “separation of church and state,” officials at Pine Creek High School told Chase Windebank, a senior, that he and his classmates no longer were allowed to use an unoccupied choir room for religious purposes.

Windebank and some classmates at Pine Creek High School,  north of Colorado Springs, had been holding meeting for prayer for three years during free time.

The school grants students such as Windebank, who are in good academic standing, permission to leave during the second half of their homeroom seminar. While other classmates spent that time reading, studying, texting, snacking, socializing, or meeting in school clubs, Windebank held a prayer group.

(Photo: ADF)

After Assistant Principal James Lucas told Windebank on Sept. 29 that he could hold his prayer meetings only before or after school hours, he consulted lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom, seeking protection of his right to freedom of religion and speech.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Windebank’s behalf.

“Public schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas. Instead, this school implemented an ill-conceived ban that singles out religious speech for censorship during free time,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel, said.

Academy School District No. 20 and its legal counsel support Pine Creek’s decision to prohibit Windebank from holding his prayer group.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, a spokeswoman for the school district said that to continue holding his meetings, Windebank must do so during “non-instructional” hours:

[S]tudents in good academic standing may leave the seminar classroom to participate in curriculum-related activities such as studying in the library or with study groups, seeking individual assistance from staff members, or meeting with curriculum-related clubs. Seminar is not a period of time during which students may engage in non-curriculum-related activities, religious or otherwise, or participate in non-curriculum related clubs.

Matt Sharp, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said public schools have “no business” stopping students from praying together during free time. Religious speech, he said, is “expressly protected by the First Amendment.”

original article: High School Bans Students From Holding Prayer Group in Free Time

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, censorship, corruption, discrimination, education, first amendment, freedom, government, ideology, intolerance, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, public policy, religion, scandal

abuse, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, islam, oppression, philosophy, religion, terrorism, torture, war

ISIS deserter recounts training, torture and terror

November 6, 2014 by Benjamin Hall

It wasn’t the slaughter of innocent women and children, the $150-per-month in wages or the strict rules enforced by torture and death that prompted Abu Almouthanna to desert the Islamic State army.

It was the endless killing — ordered by his Islamic State “emir” — of like-minded jihadists who marauded through Syria under banners different from the caliphate army’s ominous black flag, the 27-year-old Syrian and admitted former member of the terrorist army told

Almouthanna, already hardened by stints in prison, fighting the Damascus regime in the three-year civil war and conscription in the Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra, said he had no issue with murdering Christians, Kurds and Yazidi when he joined the murderous group.

“When your family has been killed, you will want to kill, too,” Almouthanna told in a recent clandestine sit-down arranged in Gazientep, Turkey, where he is in hiding.

“I was happy to move to ISIS. They had the most money and the best weapons, but other than that they were just the same.”- Abu Almouthanna, ISIS deserter

Almouthanna’s bloody path to murder in the name of Mohammad began in the farming village near Raqqa where he was born, he said. The constant repression under the government of President Bashar Assad took a dramatic turn when the civil war broke out in 2011, and young men in the north were often jailed and tortured without cause, he said.

Almouthanna recounted spending 10 months in a Syrian jail in 2012, where he said his captors pulled out his fingernails and flayed his skin. He fared better than others, who he claims to have watched get beaten to death.

When Almouthanna was released, he joined the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the rebel group that took up arms against Assad’s army before jihadists from throughout the world flooded in and turned the war-ravaged nation into a bloody free-for-all. After a few months,  Almouthanna said, he left the FSA to join Jabhat al Nusra, an Al Qaeda offshoot that had come into Syria to help the FSA liberate the nation in what became a tense and uneasy alliance. At the same time, ISIS, as it was then known, was gathering momentum and sending fighters in from Iraq, where it had already seized huge swaths of territory, money and weapons.

A well-chronicled falling out between ISIS and Al Qaeda soon meant the army now known simply as Islamic State was at war with everyone, including the FSA and Al Nusra, Assad’s army, ethnic Kurds in the northeast and religious minorities throughout Syria.

Four months after Almouthanna joined Al Nusra, his battalion was crushed in a bloody battle with Islamic State, he said. Some 2,000 fighters, including Almouthanna, simply signed on with the victors, he said.

“I was happy to move to ISIS,” he said. “They had the most money and the best weapons, but other than that they were just the same.”

His new commanders sent him to a remote boot camp for 40 days of training under battle-scarred foreign fighters, including Chechens and Afghans, he said. Sleeping 10 men to a room, they were awakened at all hours for grueling exercises, drilled in tactics and weaponry and given noms de guerre, including the name Almouthanna now goes by. The pay was about $150 a month, he said.

It was during this training that Almouthanna met some of the thousands of radicalized Western fighters who have flocked to Syria and Iraq to join Islamic State, he said. Three Frenchmen and a Briton who he bunked with were given regular Arabic lessons and studied the Koran endlessly. But it was their sheer bloodlust that set them apart, he said.

“From Day One, they joked about cutting heads and making the enemy pay,” Almouthanna said.

For the next 14 months, Almouthanna said, he fought for Islamic State, battling mostly FSA forces while based between the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa and Deir ez Zor, a city some 100 miles to the southeast.

Battles led by Libyan fighters tended to be much tougher and involved hand-to-hand combat, Almouthanna said. Raids led by Chechens, who Almouthanna said were by far Islamic State’s best fighters, tended to be well-planned and tactical. Both utilized an initial wave of suicide bombers, and ended with conquered territory littered with mines and IEDs, he said.

The fighters killed civilians with merciless glee, and didn’t have to be ordered to do so.

“They were all enemies,” he said matter-of-factly.

After one battle, Almouthanna recalled, Islamic State forces took 300 prisoners, including women and children. They held them for a day, before deeming them a burden and mowing them down in the desert, he said.

To spread terror among the civilian populations of small villages, Islamic State fighters would conduct public beheadings, he said. Townspeople would crowd into the main square to watch, bringing their children and exhorting the killers more out of fear than solidarity, he said. Islamic State members would fight over who would wield the blade, believing it “brings them closer to god,” Almouthanna said. They did the same for the privilege of carrying out suicide missions, he said.

The butchery of battle gave way to “special” camaraderie when the fighting ended, Almouthanna said. Islamic State fighters would recount their exploits, the nameless innocent victims they’d killed and joke about women. Women, some of whom were slaves taken from conquered villages and others who were female jihadists themselves, would cook feasts for the victorious warriors, Almouthanna said.

In Raqqa, Islamic State prisons were packed with captives being tortured with cattle prods, beaten with sticks and burned to death, Almouthnanna said. But the victims were members of the terrorist army who had broken its strict laws forbidding  smoking, being irreverent during prayers or uttering Allah’s name.

The turning point for Almouthanna came in the battle for the eastern city of Markada last March. The fight pitted Islamic State raiders against both FSA and Al Nusra, and left far more than the reported 125 total fighters dead, according to Almouthanna.

For Almouthanna, the five-week fight for Markada was the “unforgettable battle” that ultimately convinced him to desert. The fight for the city, Syria’s seventh-largest, was critical to Islamic State as it lay along the army’s supply route from Iraq. Islamic State would capture the city, but lose Omar al-Farouk al-Turki, a top commander and key deputy of Islamic State leader and self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“By the end, we were killing everything and everyone, including women and children in surrounding villages or left in the town,” he said, quickly denying that he personally had killed any children.

“It was easy,” he added. “We had been in battle for weeks.”

The battle, and the capture and killing of dozens of Al Nusra fighters, left Almouthanna disenchanted, he said. He said he realized that he was no longer battling the hated Assad regime, but fighting fellow jihadists. He said others felt the same way, but noted that those who try to leave are easily replaced by foreign fighters pouring in daily.

He made plans to flee.

“Everyone is very afraid to speak about their fears or feelings, and escaping [warrants] an immediate death penalty,” he said.

The terrorist army, which includes senior leaders from Saddam Hussein’s military, is infested with spies who report anyone whose resolve could be weakening, Almouthanna said.

He asked his emir, or commanding officer, for two days off to visit home, then drove to the Turkish border and melted into that nation’s population. He knows what will happen if he is caught by his old comrades.

“The punishment for leaving is death,” he said.

original article: ‘You want to kill’: ISIS deserter recounts training, torture and terror

abuse, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, islam, oppression, philosophy, religion, terrorism, torture, war

babies, bullies, culture, education, government, oppression, public policy

Florida elementary school bans breastfeeding mom from campus

November 7, 2014 by Associated Press

NICEVILLE, Fla. – A 25-year-old Florida Panhandle woman was issued a trespass warning after a disagreement with an elementary school principal about the way she was breastfeeding her young daughter on campus.

The Northwest Florida Daily News reports Meagan Shoemaker was at Plew Elementary School in Niceville on Wednesday for her niece’s weekly fitness event.

Principal Carolyn McAllister talked to Shoemaker after receiving a complaint from another parent, asking her to use discretion. Shoemaker says she was being discreet, putting a barrier between herself and the students.

McAllister says Shoemaker became “belligerent” when she stopped by the office a short time later. Shoemaker says she wasn’t hostile.

The principal and a resource officer gave her the trespassing warning which bars her from entering school grounds for the rest of the school year.

babies, bullies, culture, education, government, oppression, public policy