My latest Townhall column is called, 7 Lessons To Be Learned From The Trayvon Martin And Michael Brown Cases. Here’s an excerpt from the column. Even if you agree with
#Blacklivesmatter is a new hashtag activism campaign that claims to be “a response to the ways in which [black] lives have been devalued.” This socially virtuous campaign has gained considerable
My first question is: Who has $100K in cash just lying around and eats at Burger King? No matter the reason, Sahista Bakawla, the cleaner of a San Jose Burger
Recently I received an email, the subject line of which provocatively suggested that atheists were on the “warpath” against a university professor. Intrigued, I clicked on the email and opened up the linked article. I have to admit that I was less interested in the story than I was in identifying this conservative professor and finding out what his alleged offense was. How could atheists have a complaint about a university professor? Aren’t all professors atheists, or at least hostile to historic Christianity, anyway?
Of course I’m exaggerating a little bit, but just a little bit. Other than a few high profile exceptions, such as Prof. Mike Adams who won a lawsuit alleging discrimination because he is a political conservative and an outspoken Christian, conservative Christians are not well represented among the typical university faculty, a fact that multiple surveys have abundantly demonstrated.
As a brief aside, because of our current political and cultural milieu, there is a tendency to conflate political conservatism and religious conservatism, not without some cause, but political conservatism is not the primary focus of this article. For the sake of clarity, when I write “conservative Christianity,” I mean Christianity as it has traditionally been believed and practiced, denominational distinctives aside for the purposes of this article. Like terms might be traditionalist Christianity or perhaps creedal Christianity, as in affirming the core Christian beliefs outlined in the historic creeds.
What I found when I read the article was not disappointing. Not only does this professor sound like the real thing, he also teaches at a major public university in my home state, and he teaches history, a traditional hotbed of hostility to Western Civilization, a primary element of which is Christianity. Who knew? I was excited just to identify a dissenter.
But beyond my quest to find someone other than a cookie-cutter leftist in academia, I couldn’t help but be struck by the absurdity of the complaints. The linked article is by Gary DeMar, a prominent Christian activist and author, and discusses two incidents of people being persecuted by the guardians of approved thought for wrongthink, including the good professor. Here is a link to a local news story about the complaint.
The Professor in question is Dr. Tom McMullen of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia. The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science are the two groups that lodged the complaint, which alleges First Amendment violations against the professor.
The complaint reads in part, “…it is our information that McMullen uses class time to proselytize students and advance his personal religion, Christianity.”
Really? Are the complainants that clueless? Do they have no sense of irony? Even if their complaints are entirely true, which Dr. McMullen denies, the modern higher education system in this country, outside of self-identifying institutions of faith such as Liberty University, is one big exercise in attacking traditional Christianity and Western Civilization, and enforcing liberal groupthink. Read Gramsci and Marcuse, for example, and work your way forward. If this wasn’t the case, then they wouldn’t be so hysterical about shouting down ever so small eruptions of dissent anytime a little crimethink manages to peak through.
In order to have real fairness and balance, we would have to replace half the faculty in America. How dare this bunch of thin-skinned bullies whine about a faculty member “advance(ing)” his “personal” beliefs in class? Like that never happens in other history classes, not to mention disciplines such as anthropology and the various gender and race studies programs that are nothing more than glorified vehicles for Cultural Marxist indoctrination. But I don’t see the complainants writing indignant letters about those impositions of belief. (As an interesting aside related to wrongthink, Richard Dawkins, after whom one of the organizations is named, has shown little patience with the politically correct “atheism +” crowd, and vice versa, because he at least has sense enough to tacitly acknowledge that evolution has profoundly politically incorrect implications.)
Even if we take seriously their professed concerns about the First Amendment, which I don’t, where are their letters complaining about all the atheist and agnostic professors across the country that make it their mission to disabuse Christian students under their tutelage of their quaint notions? (Don’t make me produce reams of quotes.) I don’t think the First Amendment is at issue here, for reasons I won’t go into, but if it is, it is at least as much applicable to Dr. McMullen’s free speech rights as it is to the right of atheist, agnostic or other faith students to not hear his views. It is also at least as applicable to the multitude of professors who routinely advocate against religion.
If their concern is really the Constitution, then how many letters have they written complaining about public health professors who advocate violation of the Second Amendment? Where are their letters protesting the sociology professors who advocate government programs not authorized by the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, section 8? I realize that groups can be specialized and limited in focus, as these certainly are, put please spare me the faux concern for the Constitution. These whiners have no more concern for the Constitution as originally intended than they do for the more generic “pushing” of beliefs that faculty routinely engage in on campuses all across this nation every day. This is about quashing dissent, not upholding the First Amendment.
Additionally, the Freedom from Religion Foundation did itself no favors when it confirmed cartoonish stereotypes of itself with its complaint. As highlighted by Gary DeMar, the complaint reads in part:
“He could even legitimately discuss religious doctrines masquerading as science, such as young earth creationism and intelligent design,” the letter stated. “However, it appears that McMullen does not present these as religious ideas lacking scientific merit. Instead, McMullen presents these religious beliefs as scientific fact.”
I shouldn’t give the Foundation any advice, but the above reads like such an obvious caricature that I’m compelled to. Ummm Foundation, it’s OK for me to use loaded language like “wronkthink” and “whiners” when I’m writing obvious editorial polemics such as this. It’s OK for Gary DeMar to accuse people of being on the “warpath” when he is trying to get folks to open emails and click on links. It is not OK to use obnoxiously polemic characterizations in a complaint that you actually want someone to respond to. Seriously, who wrote this complaint? Angry Atheist Larry, a commenter from the Pharyngula blog banging away on his keyboard in his mom’s basement?
Above, I have deliberately avoided the merits of the creation vs. evolution debate because I can make the case I made without doing so. Dr. McMullen’s critics need to appreciate the issues I raise, regardless of the merits of his or their arguments regarding origins, if they desire to come across as something other than smug and pompous shills attempting to beat down any and all deviations from approved groupthink.
For one unfortunate Manhattan man, his date with twins didn’t end with the fun he was expecting. Rather, when they returned to his place for drinks, the twins tied him
SHOCKING VIDEO: Excited Gambler Gets Trampled After Running Onto the Track To Cheer On His Winning Horse [Watch]
In a surprisingly stupid move, one man, eager to celebrate his winning horse, ran out onto the dirt track where the horses were racing. He soon found himself on the
FBI Investigating After Denver Cops Punch Unarmed Suspect Six Times, Trip Pregnant Girlfriend, Delete Video of Incident
On August 14 undercover police in Denver targeted
suspected drug dealer David Flores for arrest. Flores allegedly put
a sock full of heroin in his mouth. Uniformed cops showed up to
help in the arrest and one of them punched Flores six times in an
effort to get him to spit the drugs out. When cops saw a bystander
recording the incident with his tablet, they seized it. When they
returned it to the bystander, Levi Frasier, the video was deleted,
but a few months later he realized the video had been uploaded to a
He made the video available to Fox 31 in Denver, which did not
release it in its entirety because it shows undercover cops on
tape. Fox 31
reports on its contents:
The videotape shows [Officer Christopher] Evans holding down the
suspect’s legs. A burly undercover officer can be seen bear-hugging
Flores, lying on his side on the asphalt parking lot. Flores has
his hands pinned behind his back.
[Officer Charles] Jones can be heard yelling at Flores to, “Spit
the drugs out! Spit the drugs out!”
When Flores fails to open his mouth, Jones punches him with a
closed fist six times in the face.
The video shows the suspect’s head bouncing off the pavement as
a result of the force.
While Jones was punching Flores, the video captures the loud
sounds of a woman screaming in Spanish for police to stop.
A few seconds later, a visibly pregnant woman approaches the
area where the officers are on top of Flores. Jones reaches out and
sweeps her feet out from under her.
It appears on video, the woman, 25-year-old Mayra
Lazos-Guerrero, falls hard on her stomach and face.
Jones reported to a superior he thought the woman was going to
Frasier disagrees with that and describes the punches he saw
thrown: “Those were the hardest punches I have ever heard. I’ve
seen some people get punched in the ring and on TV and whatnot, but
the sound of those resonating, I mean, it was scary. I’ve never
heard anything louder than that and I used to cage fight for quite
a while and I’ve never seen punches harder than that.”
The police department defended the cop’s decision to punch
Flores, saying he was trying to get the drugs out of his mouth,
prevent him from choking, and worried another officer was being
hurt because his arm was stuck under Flores.
The FBI is now
investigating the incident, including the deletion of Frasier’s
By the time you read this, the post-Thanksgiving shopping day known as “Black Friday” will largely be over.
However, among the fights over Barbie dolls and home theater systems, in what has become an all-too-predictable post-Thanksgiving tradition, union-sponsored protests occurred all over the nation at dozens of WalMart stores.
While the union protests are predominantly attended by non-employee, union-paid protestors (aka astroturf), some of the protestors are, in fact, striking WalMart employees.
What is their beef with the nation’s largest employer?
From the unions’ perspective it’s easy: Unions–primarily the United Food & Commercial Workers–want the retail giant unionized.
To the UFCW, with an average dues take of $40 per month, unionizing the WalMart would be like hitting the Powerball jackpot–giving the union potentially millions of dollars per month in union dues.
Moreoever, rather than going from store to store and having WalMart’s workers vote in a secret-ballot election on whether or not to unionize, the UFCW and its co-conspiratorial activist allies would prefer to unionize WalMart through the flawed process known as “card Check.”
However, to the union’s targets, WalMart’s employees, the answer boils down to one word: Money.
…And, this is where the union’s strategy could be a flawed one should WalMart choose to exercise its legal rights:
WalMart employees who choose to go out on strike (whether it’s on Black Friday or at any other time) for economic reasons like wages cannot be fired.
However, they can be replaced. Permanently.
Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1938, permanently replacing economic strikers has always been legal under the National Labor Relations Act.
In fact, even the National Labor Relations Board explains replacing economic strikers, as follows:
Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concessionsuch as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers whenthe strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. [Emphasis added.]
There is little question that the striking employees are protesting over their claims of low pay. As a result, there is little doubt that they should be deemed “economic strikers”—even by the union appointees within Obama’s National Labor Relations Board.
Though it is doubtful that WalMart will choose to exercise this legal right–at least for now–the giant retailer would be well within its rights to replace striking employees–permanently.
If not now, there’s always next year.
— The Other 98% (@other98) November 28, 2014
— Steven Greenhouse (@greenhousenyt) November 28, 2014
— ANSWER Los Angeles (@AnswerLA) November 28, 2014
— ForRespect (@ForRespect) November 28, 2014
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com
The post On Any Black Friday, #WalMartStrikers Could Be Replaced—Permanently. appeared first on RedState.
For many, the St. Louis County grand jury's
decision was going to confirm the existence of deep American
injustice one way or another. If it found there was insufficient
evidence for an indictment against Darren Wilson—the white police
officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, a black teenager, in
August in Ferguson, Missouri—it would mean that the American
justice system is corrupt, unjust, and rife with racism. If the
grand jury decided to move forward with an indictment, it could
only mean that American law enforcement is corrupt, unjust, and
rife with racism.
But even if many of these grievances are legitimate, "justice"
doesn't exist to soothe your anger, writes David Harsanyi. In the
end, there wasn't probable cause to file charges against Wilson.
That doesn't mean that many American's concerns about these kinds
of incidents aren't genuine, and it doesn't mean that police
departments like the one in Ferguson aren't a major problem, argues
Harsanyi. It only means that this incident should be judged on the
evidence, not the politics or the past or what goes on elsewhere.
Indicting Wilson to soothe the anger of the community would not be
just. It would be the opposite.
Mother, 24, ‘abused and starved her three-year-old twins so badly that one weighed less than 15lbs’ the other with ‘fractured jaw’
Some people just shouldn’t be parents. Courtney Lynn Stewart is a perfect example, recently arrested when authorities discovered her three-year-old twins shockingly abused and malnourished. A 24-year-old mother starved and
Surgeons Remove Three Inch Parasitic Worm From 11-Year-Old’s Brain After Discovering it Had Been Moving Around in His Skull
Imagine finding out that there was a parasitic worm crawling around in your brain — it’s the stuff of nightmares. And for one father, that nightmare became a reality when
An off-duty police officer, when confronted with a would-be robber wielding a submachine gun had a split second decision to make in order to protect his family. He ended up
The story is making the rounds that Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson is the front runner to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson emerged on Wednesday as a new leading contender to replace Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, but the race remains fluid and the timetable for an appointment still unclear.
The homeland security secretary has been in his job about a year, following a brief return to private practice after a stretch as the Defense Department’s top lawyer. Johnson worked on some of the thorniest national security questions to arise in the administration of President Barack Obama, including those dealing with detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the covert drone program. The Senate confirmed him, 78 to 16.
The only logical conclusion to draw from this trial balloon is that Obama is trolling the GOP.
Johnson is lawyer and political hack. His tenure at Homeland Security has done nothing to give one confidence in either his management abilities or his judgment. The way he has willingly gone along with Obama’s lawless application of immigration law should be enough to disqualify him.
His previous tenure as Department of Defense General Counsel, including his advocacy for abandoning “don’t ask don’t tell” in favor of the current permissive environment where lesbians can swap spit on a dance floor to the hazard of anyone who objects and his involvement in the DOD drone policy, hardly gives one confidence that he is up to the task of leading anything. In addition, he has made statements that have given the left aneurysms.
Johnson goes on to argue that American soldiers play the role of the Biblical Good Samaritan cited by King because they “have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people.”
Journalist Jeremy Scahill calls the speech “one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I’ve ever seen.”
Obviously it’s not possible to know what King, if he were alive, would think of any piece of U.S. foreign policy. But his political philosophy, as outlined in his landmark 1967speech against the Vietnam War, strongly suggests that he would be an opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for that matter, the secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan.
The odds of Obama actually nominating Johnson approach nil — if we assume insanity isn’t the ruling attribute and that Obama isn’t indulging is government-by-trolling for the next two years. First, Johnson’s record at DHS will come under scrutiny. While he was nominated to head DHS with a minimal record and by a subservient Democrat Senate, he would be entering this nomination process which is controlled by a Republican Senate, in an utterly poisonous political environment, with a record as a do-anything-the-boss-says political hack. More importantly, IF by some miracle he were confirmed it would require Obama to find a new DHS secretary while his lawless actions on immigration are still front and center.
years ago, when President Barack Obama unilaterally decided to
intervene in Libya's civil war, he argued that he did not need
approval from Congress because bombing military targets did not
constitute "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution. That
argument was so laughable that it was rejected even by the war's
supporters in Congress and the press, not to mention Obama's own
Office of Legal Counsel.
But that's not how Obama is approaching ISIS. Obama claims
Congress already declared war on ISIS, although it surely did not
realize it was doing that. Thirteen years ago, the president notes,
Congress authorized George W. Bush "to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons." Jacob Sullum explains why we
shouldn't buy the president's excuses for waging war without
If the disgraceful Time Magazine hadn’t already jumped the shark years ago, it sure has now, by publishing an open endorsement of the rioting and looting the liberal establishment essentially
Obama Regime Feels “Incredibly Strongly” About Breaking Promise by Providing Taxpayer-Financed Benefits to Illegal Aliens Through ObamaCare
In 2009, after Obama proclaimed to a joint session of Congress that illegal aliens would not be eligible for taxpayer-financed benefits through ObamaCare, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) was put through