Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Post Paris: Liberals Can’t Blame Terror Attack on Muslims

Never let a tragedy go to waste: minutes after the Paris terror attacks, Liberals rushed to blame the attacks on everything but Islam

Trifecta: Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, Scott Ott

bias, bullies, crisis, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, islam, news media, terrorism, tragedy, video, war

Filed under: bias, bullies, crisis, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, islam, news media, terrorism, tragedy, video, war

WE DISSENT: The Claremont Independent speaks out against progressive fascism

original article: We Dissent
November 13, 2015 by The Claremont Independent Editorial Board

The student protests that have swept through Claremont McKenna College (CMC) over the past few days—and the ensuing fallout—have made us disappointed in many of those involved.

First, former Dean Mary Spellman. We are sorry that your career had to end this way, as the email in contention was a clear case of good intentions being overlooked because of poor phrasing. However, we are disappointed in you as well. We are disappointed that you allowed a group of angry students to bully you into resignation. We are disappointed that you taught Claremont students that reacting with emotion and anger will force the administration to act. We are disappointed that when two students chose to go on a hunger strike until you resigned, you didn’t simply say, “so what?” If they want to starve themselves, that’s fine—you don’t owe them your job. We are disappointed that you and President Chodosh put up with students yelling and swearing at you for an hour. You could have made this a productive dialogue, but instead you humored the students and allowed them to get caught up in the furor.

Above all, we are disappointed that you and President Chodosh weren’t brave enough to come to the defense of a student who wastold she was “derailing” because her opinions regarding racism didn’t align with those of the mob around her. Nor were you brave enough to point out that these protesters were perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative. These protesters were asking you to protect your students, but you didn’t even defend the one who needed to be protected right in front of you.

Second, President Chodosh. We were disappointed to see you idly stand by and watch students berate, curse at, and attack Dean Spellman for being a “racist.” For someone who preaches about “leadership” and “personal and social responsibility,” your actions are particularly disappointing. You let your colleague, someone who has been helping your administration for the past three years and the college for six years, be publicly mocked and humiliated. Why? Because you were afraid. You were afraid that students would also mock and humiliate you if you defended Dean Spellman, so you let her be thrown under the bus. You were so afraid that it only took you five minutes to flip-flop on their demand for a temporary “safe space” on campus. Your fear-driven action (or lack thereof) only further reinforced the fear among the student body to speak out against this movement. We needed your leadership more than ever this week, and you failed us miserably.

Third, ASCMC President Will Su. As the representative of CMC’s entire student body, we are disappointed in you for the manner in which you called for the resignation of junior class president Kris Brackmann and for so quickly caving in to the demands of a few students without consulting the student body as a whole. If you truly cared about representing all of CMC’s interests, you would have at the very least solicited opinions from outside of the movement and your Executive Board. You have shut down any room for debate among the student body with your full endorsement of this movement and its demands, failing to give concerned students an opportunity to speak. We are disappointed that you did not allow for any time for reflection before making your quick executive decisions to announce a student-wide endorsement of this movement and to grant these students a temporary “safe space” in the ASCMC offices.

To our fellow Claremont students, we are disappointed in you as well. We are ashamed of you for trying to end someone’s career over a poorly worded email. This is not a political statement––this is a person’s livelihood that you so carelessly sought to destroy. We are disappointed that you chose to scream and swear at your administrators. That is not how adults solve problems, and your behavior reflects poorly on all of us here in Claremont. This is not who we are and this is not how we conduct ourselves, but this is the image of us that has now reached the national stage.

We are disappointed in your demands. If you want to take a class in “ethnic, racial, and sexuality theory,” feel free to take one, but don’t force such an ideologically driven course on all CMC students. If the dearth of such courses at CMC bothers you, maybe you should have chosen a different school. If students chose to attend Caltech and then complained about the lack of literature classes, that’s on them. And though it wouldn’t hurt to have a more diverse faculty, the demand that CMC increase the number of minority faculty members either rests on the assumption that CMC has a history of discriminating against qualified professors of color, or, more realistically, it advocates for the hiring of less qualified faculty based simply on the fact that they belong to marginalized groups. A hiring practice of this sort would not benefit any CMC students, yourselves included.

We are disappointed in the fact that your movement has successfully managed to convince its members that anyone who dissents does so not for intelligent reasons, but due to moral failure or maliciousness. We are disappointed that you’ve used phrases like “silence is violence” to not only demonize those who oppose you, but all who are not actively supporting you. We are most disappointed, however, in the rhetoric surrounding “safe spaces.” College is the last place that should be a safe space. We come here to learn about views that differ from our own, and if we aren’t made to feel uncomfortable by these ideas, then perhaps we aren’t venturing far enough outside of our comfort zone. We would be doing ourselves a disservice to ignore viewpoints solely on the grounds that they may make us uncomfortable, and we would not be preparing ourselves to cope well with adversity in the future. Dealing with ideas that make us uncomfortable is an important part of growing as students and as people, and your ideas will inhibit opportunities for that growth.

We are adults, and we need to be mature enough to take ownership of and responsibility for our feelings, rather than demanding that those around us cater to our individual needs. The hypocrisy of advocating for “safe spaces” while creating an incredibly unsafe space for President Chodosh, former Dean Spellman, the student who was “derailing,” and the news media representatives who were verbally abused unfortunately seemed to soar over many of your heads.

Lastly, we are disappointed in students like ourselves, who were scared into silence. We are not racist for having different opinions. We are not immoral because we don’t buy the flawed rhetoric of a spiteful movement. We are not evil because we don’t want this movement to tear across our campuses completely unchecked.

We are no longer afraid to be voices of dissent.

bullies, bureaucracy, corruption, culture, education, extremism, free speech, freedom, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, power, progressive, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: bullies, bureaucracy, corruption, culture, education, extremism, free speech, freedom, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, power, progressive, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Stop Hiring Yalies: A 5-Point Plan for Ending Campus Madness

original article: Stop Hiring Yalies: A 5-Point Plan for Ending Campus Madness
November 13, 2015 by JOHN ZMIRAK

America’s “progressive” college students are throwing a temper tantrum, and there is method to their madness. Yes, many of the frothing sign-wavers are just so many clueless pawns, but lurking behind the campus insanity is a coldly calculated purpose. The goal is to change forever the culture of education that forms our country’s leadership class.

And, yes, the movie we’re watching is a sequel. The campus explosions in 1968 also were the fruit of careful planning in smoky backrooms among hard left agitators — who coolly crafted the slogans that addled a million hippies’ brains, all to advance the goal of crippling America’s war effort in Vietnam and installing radicals in power on college campuses.

That ’60s campus movement was itself a sequel of sorts. Instead of the Old Left’s harsh, ascetical creed that called young people to go work in factories alongside the proletariat, the New Left repackaged radicalism as a pretext for hedonism and cowardice. Suddenly, taking drugs, dodging the draft, impregnating women and packing them off to abortionists were signs of some higher virtue — brave rebellions against the tyranny of repressive bourgeois values. No wonder the tactic worked like catnip on an alley cat.

Now the hard Left has dusted off that strategy and repackaged it, attacking core principles of free speech, academic objectivity, truth-telling and moral responsibility for one’s own actions — all in the service of an ideological construct that has captured the liberal arts faculties at most universities, even those nominally Christian.

This construct is the spider that hatched a thousand eggs, from the lies at the University of Missouri about imaginary Klansmen to the spasms at toxic kindergartens like my alma mater, Yale University, where “elite” students cringe and whine that they feel “unsafe” when exposed to contrary ideas or ethnic Halloween costumes — then coldly demand an end to dissenting professors’ careers. This from the school that once gave us Nathan Hale.

There are so many jumbled elements to the new worldview twisting all too many of our young citizens into cowards, bullies and fools that one could spend hundreds of pages unpacking it, but two words really will do:Cultural Marxism. Marx followed Machiavelli in viewing every aspect of social and economic life through the jaundiced eye that sees life as, at root, a ruthless struggle for power. But Marx wrapped that Italian’s bone-deep cynicism in a pseudo-Christian costume: Yes, all of human life should be seen as a vicious fight for power. But here is the twist: We are on the side of the weak, of the victims, who have waited too long for revenge, Marxism coos to its adherents. And it joins to this a promise, one rarely stated explicitly: We will gain power ourselves by ostentatiously joining their side and speaking on their behalf, then sticking it to the former ruling class, and collecting their fallen privileges.

To accomplish this power-grab, cultural Marxists seek to infiltrate and dominate every important medium of culture, every elite institution, which magnifies their power to punish their enemies. They will be winsome when it is helpful, act vulnerable when that’s needed, but when they smell blood in the wind, they will drop the rubber Anne Frank mask and start yelling for “some muscle.”

What Cultural Marxism offers is a wish list for spoiled, lazy, randy students on the make. It helps white kids from prestigious prep schools look cool, make friends, impress casual sex partners, silence their enemies, intimidate authority figures and seem like tough, effective activists — all for the trivial price of denouncing their own backgrounds and heritage. It’s no coincidence, by the way, that the hunger strike ringleader of the chaos at Mizzou is not the working class kid from the hood that some assumed but the son of a millionaire railroad executive.

What a fantastic package deal, for the average young man with strong instinctual drives, no moral compass, and too much time on his hands since he’s not taking math, science, or foreign language classes. In any case, many of his professors are tenured radicals themselves, and their schools’ administrators are timid time-servers who know more about human resources case law than they do about science, philosophy or literature. So who will push back and fight? On campus, very few. So we must step in and help them.

Bad Student! Bad!

How to answer such students? Not with anguished pleas for sweet reason and decency. You might as well readRilke to a snarling, snapping dog. Not with elaborate quests to understand their spiritual malformation. There is no mystery here. Most of these young people are immature, impulse-driven, ambitious, poorly formed and easily led. It is these nasty adolescent attributes that we hope education will help wear away. The great danger comes when educated people with a veneer of culture and a sexy ideology can glom onto students and tell them the lovely lie that their base impulses are noble, that they should indulge them, that it is righteous and good to follow envy, guts and glands.

Young people caught up in such a lie won’t benefit from a high-minded speech, the gift of a spiritual book or a call to dialogue. They’ve been taught to sneer at such things, in Marxist Shakespeare courses that undermine everything Shakespeare stood for, or in classes bent on Marxist-feminist-materialist deconstructions of the Bible. No, what such people need to see are consequences. They need to see that they will not in fact benefit from thuggishly silencing their opponents, terrorizing professors, wallowing in sordidness and  and reducing schools to chaos. They also need to see that the powerful radicals who encourage such stunts on campus pay a price, thatradical feminism, multiculturalism and race-hustling don’t pay.

Later on, when their instincts have dulled and tempers have cooled, they can open the Bible or rent Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V and rediscover the finer things of life. But it probably won’t happen on campus.

So here is my five point plan for rapping the campus Left on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper:

1. Stop hiring Yalies.

Or graduates of any other elite school famous for radical activism, unless said student’s resume includes involvement in a conservative organization, like Yale’s William F. Buckley Program. Charles Murray wisely said that the SATs, and the top schools which rely on them, are a very expensive replacement that employers use for illegal IQ tests. The reason most people go to such schools, at enormous cost after years of desperate prepping for tests and interviews, is to join the social elite. Not to learn, but to make business contacts and ensure their place in our nation’s upper class. (Remember that I went to school with these people; I speak from experience.) The reason that firms hire such students is that they imagine they will be good and useful employees, with fine brains and disciplined work habits, who will benefit their companies. This is no longer true.

The students at Yale who were so offended by a professor’s wife’s plea to chill out about “offensive” Halloween costumes that they claimed that she made them feel “unsafe” are not people you want around your company. They will be prickly, thin-skinned, self-indulgent and worst of all, litigious. They will flout orders, whine, back-stab, and then when you have to fire them, they will threaten to sue you, and bad mouth your company for years. So don’t hire them in the first place.

Instead, look for truly countercultural (that is, conservative) credentials, or go for the highest-performing student from a Christian academy that hasn’t sold out to the left, such as The King’s College, or a “working school” like theCollege of the Ozarks, where first-generation college students put in 15-hour work weeks while studying their butts off. You won’t regret it — and if you do, they won’t sue you for canning them. They haven’t been taught to see the world as their Oyster Rockefeller, served up on a silver tray. (Yes, at Yale we had brunches served on silver trays.)

2. Tell your state legislator to defund the humanities (and most of the social sciences).

You might imagine that — if not at Sarah Lawrence or Wesleyan, at least at your local state university — the humanities are still fields where students are offered their last chance, before they enter the workaday world, to savor “the best that has been written and thought,” in Matthew Arnold’s ringing words.

Balderdash. These days, in most schools the humanities are where bad ideas go to die, excruciatingly slowly. Few people still take Marx seriously in economics, the field in which he claimed to write, because his descriptions don’t fit reality and his prescriptions have proved poisonous. So Marxists migrated to literature departments. Likewise there are very few Freudians practicing psychology, since his therapy doesn’t help people. So Freudians and post-Freudian feminists infest every English department. In general, any theory which fails the empirical test of reality will go on to infect the humanities, where the only test is tenure.

Thanks to the tenure system and the death-grip that ideologues have on graduate studies and hiring in the vast majority of humanities departments, there is no fix for this short of cutting the taxpayer funded umbilical cord to these departments. Take a moment to mourn this. But it’s okay; young people can buy art history books on Amazon, watch Shakespeare movies on Netflix, and form poetry reading clubs on Facebook — all without toxic ideologies infusing and ruining forever their appreciation of the arts.

So tell your representatives that you want them to stop wasting money by appropriating funds to university humanities programs. Let them stick to funding math, science and foreign language classes until such a time as humanities departments return to teaching the humanities.

3. Restore stiff math, science and foreign language requirements for graduation from college.

There is a high-minded reason for doing this: At their best, mathematics and science are beautiful, demanding, uplifting disciplines that force us out of ourselves and compel us to view the world objectively. Foreign languages make us encounter the “Other” in his own words and on his terms. Making these courses mandatory would also be a good idea for the crassly practical reason of economic competitiveness — preparing our kids to go toe-to-toe in a globalized economy, where millions of Chinese and Indian kids are learning computer science and physics, while native-born Americans take feel-good classes in post-colonial women’s studies.

Also, the kind of sloppy, lazy thinker who is attracted to radical leftism usually lacks the discipline to master subjects like these — and so, God willing, will flunk out of college and find work grinding coffee beans or fixing bicycles. Hey, they might even discover some self-discipline through such humble, honorable work and eventually become fit to return to college as a hard-working non-traditional student paying their own way.

4. Don’t let your kids go to a radicalized college, no matter how prestigious it is.

And don’t assume that Christian universities with skillful marketing departments are still solid. Most of them aren’t, even if they know how to talk a good talk to their alumni. Why is this one crucial? Most kids are joiners. They desperately want to be liked, and are prone to empty their minds and deform their souls in order to get that. They want to please their teachers, and be seen as “open-minded” and progressive. These perfectly natural cravings are deadly in a deeply perverse environment. So don’t send the kids you spent two decades raising and protecting as naked missionaries to Sodom. The exception here is if your kid is a thick-skinned, misanthropic, anti-social contrarian. Then he’ll do fine at Yale, as I did. Sure, he’ll be miserable, but he would have been miserable anywhere.

5. Don’t give money to your alma mater, unless …

College fundraisers are experts at milking your gratitude and nostalgia, and at hiding how crazy and alien a place your college has become. Here’s a good litmus test, which I used to get the Yale fundraiser to hang up and not call back: Ask the person badgering you for money if the school offers abortions on campus, or funds them through its health plan. Inquire if there are single-sex dorms, with restricted visitation policies. Or simply look online and see if the school has a women’s studies program. And if you have the stomach, do some digging to find out what the professors in the theology department are saying in their academic books and articles. You’d be surprised. If any of these answers doesn’t please you, spend your money somewhere else.

corruption, culture, education, ideology, left wing, liberalism, progressive, protests, reform, unintended consequences

Filed under: corruption, culture, education, ideology, left wing, liberalism, progressive, protests, reform, unintended consequences

Help the Poor by Focusing on Growth rather than Inequality

International Liberty

The political left obviously hopes that it can score political points by pitching some Americans against others with a campaign based on income inequality and class warfare taxation.

Is there any merit to this approach? Are the less fortunate suffering because some are succeeding? And would more government alleviate this problem, to the extent it actually exists?

George Will has a must-read column in the Washington Post on the topic of inequality, including a very relevant observation that the rich on Wall Street are the ones who benefit from the easy-money policy embraced by the Washington establishment.

In this sixth year of near-zero interest rates, the government’s monetary policy breeds inequality. Low rates are intended to drive liquidity into the stock market in search of higher yields. The resulting boom in equity markets — up 30 percent last year alone — has primarily benefited the 10 percent who own 80…

View original post 1,498 more words

Filed under: Uncategorized


November 11, 2015 by MILO YIANNOPOULOS

No evidence has yet surfaced that a Nazi symbol made of human feces was left on campus at Missouri, less still that it was a racially-charged statement.

It seems more likely that the swastika is a hoax, just as — whisper it — so many other high-profile black victims on American campuses celebrated endlessly by progressive journalists turn out to be mendacious frauds.

But “facts” haven’t stopped students, and even some idiotic professors, from hurling themselves into grievance-fuelled hysteria on campuses all over the country, even at Yale. Such are the levels of hysteria following this fecal fabrication that Mizzou students hallucinated the KKK into existence yesterday.

Missouri’s poop swastika has been taken for granted as evidence of white supremacy terrorising innocent black kids by the media, who now attack anyone who dares to ask for a shred of proof that this thing ever existed. The progressive media establishment iscommitted to the idea of “white privilege,” the notion that somehow all white people are racist and so is society, even if no one’s actually aware of any bigotry and there’s no evidence for it anywhere.

So any time any black person offers up proof of white racism, the media leap on it as evidence of what they’ve been saying all along. The trouble is, eye-catching claims of racism and sexual assault, especially from college campuses, very often don’t withstand scrutiny. Think of Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz, the Duke Lacrosse case and the recent Rolling Stone debacle, to name just three.

If the Missouri swastika were real, there would be pictures of it. It would be the most Instagrammed poo in human history. If it were real, it could even be tested to see whether it comes from a white or black person. (You can examine something called haplotypes, apparently.) Of course, it’s possible that the police report will confirm the existence of this gruesome daubing, but… is it likely? Missouri students have been unable to produce a single witness to it.

FOX Sports has gone as far as to ask: “Is The Entire Mizzou Protest Based on Lies?” 

Whether it’s the pay gap, campus rape culture or “white privilege,” the media’s narrative of oppression when it comes to anyone who is not straight, white and male does not reflect reality. Poor white boys in fact have the worst start in life, especially in the UK. The public has scented this inconsistency, and is starting to ask the media tough questions about its racist assumptions. The media is responding by closing its comment sections.

Fortunately, a few brave souls in libertarian journalism and from comedy are striking back, with occasionally devastating effect. The entire new season of South Park has been dedicated to lampooning social justice warriors and their bullying tactics.

It’s now open season on social justice warriors and political correctness, both of which the entertainment industry and most serious journalists now recognise as a threat to creative freedom and freedom of expression. Public opinion is shifting, too: I’ve been reporting on social justice warriors in some way or another for most of my career, and it’s only the last few months I’ve noticed real hostility toward hand-wringers.

That hostility is now coming from the left, too, with left-wingers who don’t sign up to the progressive consensus, openly mocking trigger warnings and safe spaces, aghast at their own side for the inane drivel now published daily on sites like Vox, Buzzfeed, Mic, Vice and Gawker.

But what’s so brilliant about the social justice tendency is that it refuses to acknowledge when it has been beaten in the court of public opinion. SJWs aren’t just doubling down, they’re going full retard, installing codes of conduct that read like something from the Twilight Zone. Just this week, Vox instructed its staff not to “mansplain” to one another.

This is all good news, because it makes them easier to beat. The bitter white middle-class bloggers who fuel so much misery and division in American society are lurching ever further away from the public and even their own readers by ignoring facts and indulging in hurtful, speculative narrative based on discredited and preposterous far-left ideology.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the poop swastika comes to be seen as emblematic of the media’s abandonment of duty and capitulation to ideological lunacy. It would certainly be a fitting tribute to the most shitty, fascistic, delusional media tendency in living memory.

bias, bullies, civil rights, corruption, crisis, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, hate speech, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, relativism, scandal, victimization

Filed under: bias, bullies, civil rights, corruption, crisis, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, hate speech, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, relativism, scandal, victimization

Bisexual prof. raised by lesbians who supports traditional marriage faces loss of tenure

original article: Bisexual prof. raised by lesbians who supports traditional marriage faces loss of tenure
November 11, 2015 by Dustin Siggins and John Jalsevac

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, November 10, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Robert Oscar Lopez isn’t your typical social-conservative professor: he was raised by his mom and her lesbian partner, and he openly admits that he is bisexual.

But he also opposes same-sex “marriage” and adoption, and even submitted a brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing against the redefinition of marriage. He bases his views in part on the trauma of his parents’ divorce when he was a toddler, and his subsequent experiences of being raised in a same-sex household.

Now he says he’s under attack for defending the rights of children to be raised by their natural parents. Specifically, he may lose tenure, and even faces suspension without pay, from California State University-Northridge, the taxpayer-funded university that tenured him just two years ago.

Lopez says that it all began when he gave his students the option to attend and present research, for credit, at a conference he organized on parenting and children’s rights at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in 2014.

One of the speakers there, Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute, spoke on the topic of divorce, during which she says she never discussed the issue of homosexuality. However, at her table she had several pamphlets, including one titled “77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage.” She says that speakers at the conference supported the right of children to be raised by their mother and father.

After choosing to attend the conference, a student subsequently filed a complaint against Lopez, claiming that he discriminated against her based on gender. She also submitted a copy of Roback-Morse’s pamphlet, and one other pamphlet entitled “Are You a Survivor of the Sexual Revolution?” as evidence that Lopez had created a “hostile learning environment on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.” Other students also reportedly filed similar complaints about the conference.

In an e-mail sent to media, Lopez says that he has been under investigation by the University of California’s Northridge administration for 378 days for alleged discrimination and retaliation against students. Lopez says he himself didn’t find out he was under investigation until 245 days after the process was launched.

He also said that one of the three people heading the investigation compared the Ronald Reagan Library to the KKK.

STORY: I grew up with two moms: here’s the uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to hear

Harassment is nothing new for Lopez. The radical LGBT organization Human Rights Campaign targeted Lopez in 2014 as part of the so-called “Export of Hate”, something he says leaves him fearing for his family’s safety.

Now, he says the university violated policies when it targeted him, and he is threatening legal action against the university for violations of California employment and civil rights law.

University policy states that it will complete investigations “no later than 60 working days after the intake interview,” with a 30-day extension if necessary. However, in a disposition, the university told Lopez he was investigated after formal charges were filed in May.

Lopez also points out that the deposition says the allegations made against him by a female student “were similar to the allegations made” by two students “about the conference just days after it took place on October 3” of last year – meaning the investigation apparently started in 2014.

The university eventually found Lopez innocent of discrimination, but last month found him guilty of retaliation against a student. Lopez says the “retaliation” claim is clearly bogus, pointing to how the student in question got an “A” in his class, even after reporting him, and that there is no documented proof of retaliation.

The findings could cause Lopez to lose his job.

In a letter to the university, Lopez’s attorney — Charles LiMandri with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund — wrote that the finding of retaliation violated university policy, noting that while “intimidation” and “retaliation” have high bars in official university documents, the charges against Lopez are based upon conversation fragments that took place seven months apart.

“In sum, this evidence does not even begin to meet the CSUN’s own standard for ‘retaliation,'” says the letter. “Under these circumstances, we have no choice but to conclude that the disposition of this investigation is purely political and ideological attack on Dr. Lopez for holding — and exposing his students to — ideas about children’s right in the context of family and reproduction which are apparently unpopular at CSUN.”

Lopez says that when it comes to the question of same-sex “marriage,” he is most concerned about the rights of children.

“Same-sex ‘marriage,’ theoretically, does not impinge on anyone else’s rights,” Lopez told LifeSiteNews last year. “But if you guarantee a right to children as part of marriage, now this drags in the rights of other people — there is a third-party…Not everyone gets married but every human being has a mother and father; those latter relationships are more fundamental than a spousal relationship.”

Lopez filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of children and against redefining marriage, saying that it was children, not same-sex couples, who have real standing in court on the issue of marriage.

Lopez also strongly opposes IVF, telling LifeSiteNews that “gay advocacy groups are pushing for the creation of children through artificial reproduction technology and for adoption systems that give children to gay couples because the gay couples want to be parents, not because children need to be in their homes.”

“This is the transformation of human beings into chattel in a way we haven’t seen since before slavery was abolished. I have stated many times that this isn’t identical to the African slave trade, which involved far worse abuse, but there is an undeniable commonality between pre-13th-Amendment slavery and what is being advocated by groups like the Human Rights Campaign,” he said.

Roback-Morse has come out in support of Lopez. “I believe the sexual revolutionaries despise Robert Lopez because he challenges one of their core assumptions,” she wrote this week at the National Catholic Register. “The sexual revolution is based on the idea that all adults able to give meaningful consent are entitled to unlimited sexual activity with a minimum of inconvenience. What they never mention is this: Children just have to accept whatever adults choose to give them.”

bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, children, corruption, discrimination, diversity, free speech, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, children, corruption, discrimination, diversity, free speech, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, scandal

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

A controversial point, certainly. But not an irrelevant one. Why bother bringing up this discovery? Because intellectual honesty requires an honest look at the facts. Most people don’t really care about who people have sex with but none-the-less don’t like being lied to. The biggest lie on gay issues is that any and all disapproval of homosexuality is essentially hate or phobia.

This lie rests on the premise that gay people are “born that way” or “God made them that way”, as if it were no different from black people being born black. This is the prime reason gay activists have tried to politically and morally tie the gay agenda to the civil rights movement. If this myth weren’t so important it wouldn’t have been used as the predominant line to push the gay agenda.

As a result of this lie, laws have been put in place which are designed to persecute people who don’t approve of homosexuality. Now the US government is intruding upon the definition of a religious institution – a curious thing in a nation which supposedly values the separation between church and state. Ironically, those pushing the gay agenda are the most intolerant of dissent, the least open minded, and the most oppressive of speech they dislike – they act like fundamentalists. On the other hand people supporting gay marriage continually claim to adhere to “science” when championing said laws when any pseudo-science which supports their cause is lauded as legitimate, and any science contradicting their cause is cast aside as pseudo. And if it didn’t really matter if homosexuality is genetic supporters of gay rights wouldn’t have tried to find genetic explanations for it in the first place.

People have been persecuted for supporting the ancient and common meaning of a one man/one woman model of marriage. If there were not so much bullying in defense of so called gay rights it really wouldn’t matter if gay people are really “born that way”. But there is a lot of bullying and fascism in defense of the gay agenda. If we’re going to have laws about this sort of thing and pretend to be a more enlightened society we should at least get the science right.

original article: Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic
May 13, 2013 by Mark Ellis

See Dr. Neil Whitehead’s synopsis here.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions.  If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,”  things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other.  One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S.  The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

For those who are looking for Dr. Whitehead’s writings on his research visithttp://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

homosexuality, research, science, scientists

Filed under: homosexuality, research, science, scientists

Modern Educayshun – social justice is better than an education

The follow up to #Equality, Modern Educayshun delves into the potential dangers of our increasingly reactionary culture bred by social media and political correctness.
Written and Directed by Neel Kolhatkar
Instagram & Twitter @neelkolhatkar

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, diversity, education, elitism, extremism, humor, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism, video

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, diversity, education, elitism, extremism, humor, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism, video

‘White Privilege’: Media Ignore Black Eighth Graders Murdering White Woman 120 Miles from ‘Racist’ Mizzou

original article: ‘White Privilege’: Media Ignore Black Eighth Graders Murdering White Woman 120 Miles from ‘Racist’ Mizzou
November 10, 2015 by BEN SHAPIRO

While the media go out of their minds covering supposed systemic racism at the University of Missouri, actual racist acts go unnoticed.

Yesterday, the media cheered the resignation of President Tim Wolfe, even though Wolfe sided with “anti-racism” protesters every step of the way. Wolfe acknowledged “racism” at Mizzou, despite zero evidence of entrenched systemic racism; he begged forgiveness after his car didn’t hit a student protester during a homecoming parade; he met with and praised a student hunger striker. He found himself on the wrong end of a Godfather-like offer from the racial conflagrationists anyway.

And the media celebrated. ESPN – MSNBC with spherical and oblong projectiles — ran with the story all day, talking about the supposed bravery of the full scholarship Mizzou football players who risked precisely nothing by joining the astroturfed movement. The Associated Press gleefully reported, “when another series of racially charged incidents stirred emotions in Columbia, students emboldened by last year’s protests in Ferguson took action.” Never mind that the Ferguson protests were riots, and that they took place over a justified shooting of a black criminal by a white police officer. Never mind that the Mizzou president was blackmailed out of his job simply because he had white skin.

No, this was a racial story worth covering. It was worth covering because the black student government president was allegedly called the n-word by some white guys – no evidence was found; it was worth covering because some black students got called the n-word by a drunken frat boy, who is now under investigation for expulsion; it was worth covering because some crazy person scrawled a swastika in poop on a dorm bathroom wall.

Meanwhile, there was another racial story the media ignored progressing just 120 miles from Columbia.

In Kansas City, the trial of 14-year-old and 13-year-old black eighth graders in the murder of 43-year-old white woman Tanya Chamberlain continues. Court documents released on Tuesday to KCTV5 showed that the two boys went to school that day; they then went to a car wash and got into Chamberlain’s car while she was still in the front seat. Twenty minutes later, police tracked down the car, and the boys ran. According to the officer on scene, Chamberlain had been stabbed to death, with wounds on her face, neck, chest, arms and hands. The bloody knife was found in the car as well. A mother of another student contacted police to say her son recognized the two boys from the school football team, and by the hoodies they always wore. A neighbor also said that one of the boys showed up in her home and had blood on his undershirt. Clothing was removed from the apartments of the boys. The teens have implicated each other.

The media will pretend that true racism exists at a university where the administration fights racism at every turn, but will ignore murders that cross racial lines so long as the victims are white and the perpetrators black. There will be no riots or protests over Tanya Chamberlain. There will be no cameras.

After all, to cover such incidents would be “white privilege.”

bias, corruption, criminal, diversity, elitism, hate crime, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, racism, racist, relativism, tragedy

Filed under: bias, corruption, criminal, diversity, elitism, hate crime, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, racism, racist, relativism, tragedy

Obamacare includes scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people

original article: Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people
August 8, 2013 by Patrick Howley

Charitable hospitals that treat uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said John Kartch, spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

Additionally, the rise in the number of insured Americans under Obamacare will make it more difficult for tax-exempt hospitals to continue meeting required thresholds for treating the uninsured, driving more hospitals into the for-profit category and yielding more taxable money for the federal government.

“The requirements generally apply to any section 501(c)(3) organization that operates at least one hospital facility,” according to a “Technical Explanation” report of new Obamacare provisions prepared by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on March 21, 2010, the day Obamacare passed.

Obamacare’s new requirements could slam hospitals with massive $50,000 fines if they fail to meet bureaucrats’ standards.
“The hospital must disclose in its annual information report to the IRS (i.e., Form 990 and related schedules) how it is addressing the needs identified in the assessment and, if all identified needs are not addressed, the reasons why (e.g., lack of financial or human resources). Each hospital facility is required to make the assessment widely available. Failure to complete a community health needs assessment in any applicable three-year period results in a penalty on the organization of up to $50,000,” according to the JCT report.

The government is particularly interested in how and why hospitals will be providing discounted or free care to poor patients, requiring each of them to “adopt, implement, and widely publicize a written financial assistance policy” and explain the methods they use to screen applicants for assistance and how they calculate patients’ bills.

A delegate working under the Department of Health and Human Services must review the innumerable reports charitable hospitals file every three years, along with copies of their audited financial statements.

After sifting through this massive amount of information, the delegate and HHS secretary must attempt to identify trends in the hospitals’ spending and send in a comprehensive report of their findings to Congress by 2015, according to the JCT report.

Healthcare experts warn that the Obamacare’s new requirements make it almost impossible for charitable hospitals to navigate treacherous new waters.

“Nonprofit hospitals should be advised that the new PPACA requirements will play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured. The new law leaves many gray areas and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance. Following the new procedures as best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status,” wrote D. Douglas Metcalf, partner at the law firm Lewis and Roca, in a 2013 op-ed entitled “Will nonprofit hospitals disappear under Obamacare?”

The White House did not return a request for comment.

abuse, bureaucracy, corruption, elitism, funding, government, greed, health care, nanny state, oppression, politics, progressive, public policy, taxes

Filed under: abuse, bureaucracy, corruption, elitism, funding, government, greed, health care, nanny state, oppression, politics, progressive, public policy, taxes



November 2015
« Oct   Dec »