UCLA Students on Video, ‘Stand Out’ in Their Understanding of Middle East Issues

Prager fan, California Cole, sent me this priceless video by Mark Schiff interviewing ‘students’ at UCLA, a California ‘university’ in Los Angleles.   The title is….”Israel IQ at UCLA”.

Do not Pass GO until you have seen this video!!! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_2SbkRybBk

GO…..go back to the video and test your own honesty and your own knowledge……Truth must ‘will out’ for the greatness of America begins AT HOME and not IN WASHINGTON!    (Contrary to the Marxists in the Obama ‘change movement’.)

I submit that the students at UCLA or at any college or university in America are about at the same level of understanding  of climate cause and history or about any other topic, as  the topic at hand in the video.

Question at PowerLine: Are Liberals Coming Out of Closet on the Constitution? NO…NO…Never!

NO!…..John Hineraker!!!!  No!  and NEVER!   These are a new American breed of Lefties.    They oppose the Constitution…….These are Progressives which have PROGRESSED!   The Constitutution is a scrap of paper to be thrown into the ‘dustbin of history’.

Marxists striving for Marxism  are not interested in truth or democracy.   Marxists are not interested in a  Bill of Rights or any other Rights except for their Godless Divine Right to Rule  which they betow upon themselves. 

These people led by Barack Hussein Obama are Marxists….students of the modern American Marxist teachings at university.   What is it you cannot  understand?

They are the enemy of government by law, which has been held so sacredly by teachers, if not lawyers until the Cultural Revolution which has crippled American ‘thought’ ever since.

They are the ally of government by executive decree……the dictatorship by one or by committee.

Marxists have no respect for the American PAST or PRESENT.   America was a Christian invention with its traditions still lingering in the culture.   THAT is the Atheist Marxist’s great enemy in the way of Marxist superior intellectual rule.

Read on, dear reader to John Hinderaker’s article at PowerLine today:

“We have written many times about the Progressive movement and its open hostility toward both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We have also noted that modern progressives have generally had the good political sense to keep their opinions about the Constitution to themselves, beyond whatever critique is implicit in terming it a “living” document that is liable to call forth previously unknown “rights” at any moment.

Today’s New York Times editorializes on the Republican takeover of the House. You could paraphrase the editorial as “wah-wah-wah;” the paper basically cries over its party’s November defeat. But in the course of doing so, the editorialists are surprisingly open about their contempt for the Constitution:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber.

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

Needless to say, the Times did not adopt a similarly surly attitude in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi took over the helm in the House. The editorial continues:

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

Well, yeah. Actually paying attention to the Constitution would be a change. But now the Times shows its true colors:

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

Presumptuous to read the Constitution out loud? Seriously? And, in fact, the founders didn’t leave the Constitution “open to generations of reinterpretation;” they provided for the document to be changed by amendment. But most revealing is the Times’ hauling out the old three/fifths chestnut, much beloved by liberals who despise the Constitution. Never mind that the point of that provision, insisted upon by representatives of the free states, was to limit the influence of pro-slavery states in the House. This is, actually, a good illustration of how the Constitution has changed through amendment rather than “reinterpretation.” Once the slaves were freed during and after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment provided that the House would be “apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State….” So the paper’s snarky aside is entirely misplaced.

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it.

Contemplate that phrase for a moment–“vacuous fundamentalism.” So citation of Constitutional authority is “fundamentalism?” And why is it “vacuous” for legislators to consider whether proposed legislation does, in fact, have a basis in the Constitution? Isn’t this one of their most basic duties?

The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

Maybe instead of jeering at the Constitution, the Times editors should read it. Nowhere does it say or imply that constitutionality is the sole concern of the judicial branch. On the contrary, the Constitution gives the judiciary no special role with respect to determining the Constitutional validity of legislation or executive actions. Article I says, further, that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This places a clear duty on Congress to determine that the legislation it enacts is consonant with the “Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

The Republicans’ antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.

It’s nice to see that the Times has such a sense of urgency, but I don’t think the paper needs to worry. Reading the Constitution will take considerably less time than the near-filibuster that Nancy Pelosi delivered before handing the House gavel over to Speaker John Boehner. The Republicans will be on to substance soon enough. I doubt, however, that will make the Times editorialists any happier than contemplating the Constitution does.”

Comment:  In case readers have already forgotten, these folks at the New York Times who write these pieces are Marxists yearning for forced equality of others……They learned this at university!!  These  are the people who become the Sonia Sotomayors and the Elena Kagans…elected the new  Supereme Court not for their respect for the Law but respect for  their own personal agendas……A Latina woman who has a better life experience than a white man for the job……President Obama publicly announced he was seeking a Justice who had feelings….not someone who understood well the Constitution, the Law of the Land.   He got Elena Kagan who has feelings for PEACE and is anti military.  

What is about this drama folks at PowerLine and others don’t understand?   These are Marxists, progressing to Marxism by whatever means is possible within the American bureaucracy.  

That the citizens find themselve in a mess is primarily because we haven’t been paying attention for America for about 50 years. 

---

Despite Dems “Preening”… Pelosi-Reid Congress Among Highest Disapproval Ratings

111th Congress Averaged 25% Approval!~

Pelosi-Reid have presided over least popular Congress of past two decades

by Lydia Saad

“PRINCETON, NJ — The 111^th Congress received an average 25% approval rating from Americans over the course of 2009 and 2010. While this is similar to the 23% average approval rating for the 110^th Congress spanning 2007 and 2008, it is among the lowest average approval ratings for a Congress that Gallup has recorded in the past two decades.

Gallup first measured Americans’ approval of the job Congress is doing in 1974, but did not consistently update it at least annually until the 1991-1992 term of the 102^nd Congress. Approval of subsequent Congresses has varied mostly from the low 20s to the mid-40s, although it reached 55% for the 107^th Congress’ 2001-2002 term.

Over the last two decades, the country has experienced good economic times and bad, and those differences are clearly reflected in the approval ratings of Congress, just as they are in presidents’ job approval ratings. However, the speakers for each Congress could be a factor. Both the 110^th and 111^th Congress were controlled by the Democrats and led by Nancy Pelosi as House speaker. The Gallup record shows that approval of Congress during her tenure, from 2007 through 2010, averaged a fairly meager 24%, including a record-low 13% approval rating in December 2010. By contrast, for the eight years that Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert presided over the U.S. House of Representatives, from early 1999 through the end of 2006, Congress’ approval averaged 44%. From 1995 through 1998, when Republican Newt Gingrich served as speaker, Congress’ approval averaged 38%, and for the last four years of Democrat Tom Foley’s speakership, from 1991 through 1994, it averaged 26%.

9/11, Economy, and Scandals Influence Congress’ Ratings

The high approval of the 107^th Congress, which met from 2001-2002, was partly the result of Americans’ high approval of Congress in September 2001, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Approval of Congress doubled immediately after the attacks, from 42% in early September to 84% in early October, and it remained above 50% for the remainder of 2001 and in much of 2002.

Public approval of Congress over the years was also likely influenced by various political scandals, most notably the House banking scandal in 1992 and bribery scandals in 2005/2006 related to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, both of which corresponded with low points in congressional approval.

The economy also seems to be a major factor in Americans’ views of Congress, with that body earning higher approval ratings in years of relatively strong economic growth, and lower approval ratings when gross domestic product grew by less than 2% per year. The major exception to this came during the 107^th Congress, when 9/11 contributed to higher job approval ratings for Congress at the same time the economy was contracting. Also, the 25% average approval for the 103^rd Congress may have been lower than would be predicted from the average 3.5% increase in gross domestic product from 1993 to 1994, perhaps because of the same issues that led to the Republican congressional victories in the 1994 midterm elections.

Bottom Line

Pundits on the political right and left are offering widely divergent assessments of the 111^th Congress as it closes its second term and makes way for an incoming Republican majority to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Its champions call it one of the most productive Congresses in recent history, heralding its accomplishments relative to healthcare reform, Wall Street regulatory reform, economic stimulus, and nuclear arms reduction. Its critics point to major increases in government spending and debt, increased regulation of the economy, and expansion of government involvement in healthcare. While history will issue a more reflective judgment on how well this Congress performed its constitutional duties, Americans’ real-time ratings over the course of the 111^th Congress are among the least positive for the last 10 Congresses.

Survey MethodsThe average Congress approval rating for the 111th Congress is based on 25 separate Gallup Poll surveys conducted between January 2009 and December 2010. Each survey is based on telephone interviews with a random sample of approximately 1,000 adults aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For the aggregated sample of more than 25,000 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, cell phone-only status, cell phone-mostly status, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.”

Article found at Gallup.

Comment:   The Obama-Pelosi-Reid in two years, 2009-2010 plunged the United States of America in a new debt of:

                                       $5,000,000,000,000  and we haven’t yet paid a penny for Obamacare Dictatorship over American Health.

Why Does the American Left, Led by Obama, Tell So Many Untruths?

“Bush lied..People died”  was a lie.   An outright lie.   Hillary Clinton knew it was a lie.  Nearly all of the less moribund in Congress knew that statement was a lie.

In nearly every speech uttered by president Obama, with or without teleprompter,  his words sink under the weight of untruths………..   It is unPrager-like to call the president a chronic liar, so I shall pass on that charge, but ask you readers to discover for yourselves whether untruths stream from Obamaspeech.  

Is it an untruth that the president, pre-presidentially,  for twenty years a member of  Jeremiah ‘Goddamn America’ Wright’s ‘parish’  in Chicago, is telling the truth that he never had any idea that Pastor Wright had preached so……..This is the same Jeremiah Wright who Mr. Obama in his own writings, had claimed for his “Father Figure”.

Why do  today’s leaders of the Democrat Party constantly repeat cliches filling time and brain with untruths?

That some Republicans spin truth is true.   Damn them for it, but they are ‘babes in the woods’, thank God,  compared to their Marxist opponents in Congress and the Whtie House.

I am hopeful that the Tea Party folks will demand more truthspeech from  their conservative flock.  One reason I am extra proud of this invasion into  Washington, is for the most part,  they are still  quite honest.   They haven’t picked up the habit of “spin”.    Spin wreaks of untruth…….Spin disgusts me.    I want to know ‘what is’, more than ‘what is garbage’.  How about you, dear reader?

Rely on Dennis Prager “clarity” to be the rule for today’s conservative.  Let CLARIFY be the new code of conservative political conduct.   Help honesty return to American shores.  Help END THE LEFT WING DECEIT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

Voting citizens should be amassing enough knowledge to be able to judge when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Barney Frank, Arlen Specter, and president Obama or anyone else are consciously or subconsciously programmed to speak untruths about the country itself  and about the issues that face the country.

Until then, take note mental or by pen, when those Democrats of fame, defame honesty you become better prepared to vote more confidently and ‘Americanly’.

Nancy Pelosi……Lady Macbeth or Loony Tune for the Ages?

For four years this political madam has ruled the U.S.  House of Representatives with an overshelming Democrat Party majority to dictate government policy.  Every American citizen should be made aware of the legislation this madam has presented to bring Marxism to the nation.   Click onto the video  here    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/04/pelosi_even_if_americans_were_pleased_with_health_care_it_would_be_necessary_for_reform.html

Madam claims the Party she led for the past four years has always been for restrained spending.

I do apologize for some of the editing added to the following video, but it was the best compendium on madam speaker that I could find:

http://newwaveslave.com/2010/10/nancy-pelosi-on-healthcare-the-economy-and-food-stamps/

Muslim Terror Against Christians Continues Unabated……..And The “Moral Equivalence” of the Tavis Smileys at PBS

James S. Robbins at the Washington Times reminds readers of the difference between Christian terror and Muslim terror in our 2011 modern times.   At National Public Radio hosts there advertise that there is absolutely no difference between these terror groups.  

It is true that ten or so years ago an above-the-law abortionist was shot to death by a “Christian” anti-abortionist.   It is true that in Nigeria some Christians have dared to defend themselves against attacking muslim jihadists on a ‘crusade’ of murder and slaughter of those unwashed of Islam. 

There have been no reports of such defense efforts among Christians in Baghdad the other day who survived a bombers attack on a Church.

Christian organizations throughout the world are so threatening they intimidate by remain totally silent regarding these assaults to accent their terrorism.

To equal the Chistian policy of intimidation by silence, muslim jihadist  reacted by detonating a car bomb in Alexandria, Egypt.  

President Barack Hussein Obama recognized the status quo with acceptance   as James S. Robbins at the Washington Times noted:

“Radical Muslims detonated a car bomb outside a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt, on Saturday, killing 21 and wounding many others. The White House condemned the attack as a “barbaric and heinous act” but – true to form – remained silent on the jihadist motives of its perpetrators.

President Obama, his fans at NPR and PBS, and the Left in general, seem quite pleased with this moral equivalence.   Many from the Saul Alinsky Left  in the West rally around the jihadists of Islam to assist America’s atheist-Marxists to eliminate Christianity from the human stage.

Dennis Prager recently wrote an article published in National Review Online, THE NEW MORAL EQUIVALENCE.

He offers:      

“Little has changed regarding the Left’s inability to identify and confront evil. Its moral equation of good guys and bad guys was made evident again in recent weeks by hosts on three major liberal networks: ABC, National Public Radio (NPR), and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

 First, on May 25, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim Somali writer and activist for human, especially women’s, rights in Islamic countries. After mentioning American Muslim terrorists Major Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 fellow soldiers and injured 30 others at Fort Hood) and Faisal Shahzad (who attempted to murder hundreds in Times Square), this dialogue ensued:

Ali: “Somehow, the idea got into their [Hasan’s and Shahzad’s] minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.”

Smiley: “But Christians do that every single day in this country.”

Ali: “Do they blow people up?”

Smiley: “Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is — I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian.

“There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”

Then, on August 22, Michel Martin, host of NPR’s Tell Me More, in discussing whether the Islamic Center and mosque planned for near Ground Zero should be moved, said this on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz: “Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed [the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]?”

And third, on August 26, ABC 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted this to his nearly 1 million followers: “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades . . . . study them.”

I have known Tavis Smiley since the 1980s, when we both worked at the same radio station in Los Angeles. He is smart, and he is a gentleman who has accorded me great respect both on and off the air.

How, then, does such a man equate Muslims who murder in the name of Islam with Americans who “murder every day,” none of whom commit their murders in the name of Christianity?

How does Michel Martin equate the thousands of Islamic terrorists around the world, all of whom are devout Muslims, with a single American (one who professed no religion at all)?

And how does ABC’s Chris Cuomo claim that Christians cannot condemn Muslims for violence because of the Christian Crusades?

First of all, the Crusades occurred a thousand years ago. One might as well argue that Jews cannot condemn Christian and secular anti-Semitic violence because Jews destroyed Canaanite communities 3,200 years ago.

Second, it is hardly a defense of Muslims to cite comparable Christian conduct that occurred a thousand years ago.

Third, even if we do compare the Crusades with contemporary Islamic jihadism, there is little moral equivalence. The Crusades were waged in order to recapture lands that had been Christian for centuries until Muslim armies attacked them. (Some Crusaders also massacred whole Jewish communities in Germany on the way to the Holy Land, and that was a grotesque evil — which Church officials condemned at the time.) As the dean of Western Islamic scholars, Princeton professor Bernard Lewis, has written, “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

So how did Tavis Smiley, Michel Martin, and Chris Cuomo make such morally egregious statements?

The answer is not that these are bad people, or that they are not repulsed by terrorist violence.

The answer is leftism, the way of looking at the world that permeates high schools, universities, and the news and entertainment media. Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of making accurate moral judgments. They once regarded America and the Soviet Union as morally similar. Today, they claim that the people they call Christian “extremists” (who are they?) and Islamist terrorists and their supporters pose equal threats to America and to the world.

That is how bright and decent people become moral relativists and thereby undermine the battles against the greatest evils — Communist totalitarianism in its time, and Islamic totalitarianism in ours.

The only solution is to keep exposing leftist moral confusion. One problem, however, is that in countries without talk radio, an equivalent to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative columnists, and a vigorous anti-Left political party, this is largely impossible.

The other major problem is that the media that dominate American life have little problem — indeed, they largely concur — with the foolish and dangerous comments made by their mainstream-media colleagues. That is why these comments, worthy of universal moral condemnation, were ignored by the mainstream (i.e., left-wing) media. Instead, they directed mind-numbing attention and waves of opprobrium toward Dr. Laura.

Those who don’t fight real evils fight imaginary ones.”

Comment:  It is the human female, by nature, who cowers before real evils never wanting to disturb her world of security.   Any nation reaching an over- feminized stage of governance and the governed, has entered the last stages of life experiencing  the first seizures  of its  death throes.

This is a classic moment of human life at any level.    When female romance overwhelms  male instinct for danger, there is little hope for the neighborhood, for the city, for the nation to survive.

Good Morning, America!  Have a nice day!

Scandal-Connected Radical, Cathy Davidson, Obama’s Choice to Run Council for HUMANITIES!

“Just what we need — another new Obama appointee with a controversial past and radical inclinations.

Several weeks ago, the president announced his intention to make three appointments to the National Council on the Humanities. One of them is Cathy Davidson, an English professor at Duke University. Davidson’s curriculum vitae includes some very impressive-sounding credentials: past president of the American Studies Association (ASA), past editor of the American Literature journal, and vice-provost of Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke.

But one thing she probably won’t voluntarily mention at her confirmation hearing is that she was a member of Duke University’s “Group of 88.” These faculty members became known across the nation when they tried to exploit the infamous Duke lacrosse team scandal to make a political statement about race relations and white privilege.

She then stated that “[p]ost-colonialism is the theory” to follow, rather than American exceptionalism. Post-colonialism, or anti-colonialism, as it is also known, “is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America,” according to author Dinesh D’Souza. Therefore, the theory goes, the industrialized West is indebted to the rest of the world for past injustices.

Post-colonialism also happens to be the underlying philosophy of President Obama, D’Souza said in his latest book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.

Another indication of Davidson’s political biases in the ASA was a caution to society members that they “probably should not take a job at any university where everyone is a married, white, heterosexual male — even if you too… are a married, white, heterosexual male.”

The National Council on Humanities’ primary function is to advise the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities on which grants to give. Last year, the NEH handed out $171 million for scholarly grants in the humanities. Davidson’s ASA address provides some insight into her likely tendencies for dispensing that money. She applauded the ASA convention’s inclusion of presentations on:

Turkish pants and Tiffany hoods; Japanese Elvis impersonators; Shamu the Whale; the lesbian subject in Arab culture; … the “white” problem in American studies; Pueblo figurative ceramics; low-rider cars in northern New Mexico; Haitian Rara celebrations; American Orisa worship; Spiderwoman Theatre; … “The Boyz in the Hoods: Academy Bashing as a ‘Popular’ Culture” and another on “Discourse and Dat Course: Postcoloniality and Afrocentricity.”

Her recent academic efforts tend toward a similarly juvenile mix of pop culture, political correctness, and anti-intellectualism. A recent Raleigh News & Observer article described her class “Your Brain on the Internet,” in which her students graded each other. The experiment produced a predictable result — every student got an “A.”

This sort of fatuous approach to scholarship hardly represents the judicious mindset desired for somebody who will decide how to spend millions on intellectual pursuits. With her lack of ability to discern real scholarship from superficial nonsense and her radical tendencies, it is hard to imagine somebody who will perform the position’s duties less responsibly than Davidson.

But that obviously did not dissuade President Obama. He appears to have a radical agenda and naturally appoints people who will further that agenda.  Just a few of his high profile appointments with radical ties or views include: Van Jones, who was briefly Obama’s special advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; Energy and Environment Czar Carol Browner; Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Health Care Czar Donald Berwick, and many more.

Davidson should therefore feel right at home in Washington. Perhaps if people like her are controlling the purse strings and influencing our national culture, Congress should consider cutting off the endowment’s funding.

In that incident, three lacrosse team members were accused of rape by a stripper hired to dance at a party. Her allegations seemed questionable from the start and were eventually proven false, but not before the team’s season was canceled, the coach was fired, and the three accused players left school in a cloud of suspicion.

The 88 faculty members signed an open letter titled “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?” which depicted the school as a hotbed of racism and suggested that the “results of the police investigation” were secondary to the “anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be the objects of racism and sexism.”

Nearly a year later, in January of 2007, Davidson published an op-ed in the Raleigh News & Observer that tried to finesse the group’s original intent without backing off from the original’s condemnatory tone. By that time, it had become obvious that the lacrosse players were innocent, which she begrudgingly noted. But much of her language appeared to suggest that their innocence was irrelevant; she discussed, among other similar statements, “the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13 [the night of the alleged rape],” and “Duke again came to symbolize the most lurid and sexualized form of race privilege.”

“Will future rape victims dare to step forward after such a spectacle?” she continued as if there really were a rape victim. “Will African-Americans with legitimate grievances be willing to demand justice in the wake of this public debacle?”

The op-ed was hardly out of character for Davidson. While much of her scholarly writing is not political, some of it reveals that she views the world through a prism of gender and race grievances, and that the U.S. holds no special place in her heart.

In a “presidential address” to the 1993 American Studies Association convention, she derided American exceptionalism — the idea that the U.S. is a special nation due to its founding on principles of liberty and equality under the law — as “exceptionally ignorant of anything other than the Puritan tradition founded on Plymouth Rock.”

This article was written by Jay Schalin at Pajamas Media

Note.  Since Marxism is the Religion of the Atheist, it must be introduced along every avenue of human experience.   Art and Communcations are among the most prized once the political setting is under control.   In January, 2009,  countless public elementary schools were to memorize songs promising obeisance, not to the ethos of the country  in which they live, but to ‘our leader, Barack Obama’.

Obama Failure as World’s Human Rights Leader

President is weak in action, fancy in speech.   The following article is by Jackson Diehle, Washington Post:

“In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly last September Barack Obama suggested that his administration’s notoriously weak defense of human rights around the world would be invigorated. “We will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless,” he said. He went on to urge other democracies: “Don’t stand idly by, don’t be silent, when dissidents elsewhere are imprisoned and protestors are beaten.”

Just over two months later, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Bahrain, an important Persian Gulf ally that hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The emirate was in the midst of a major crackdown on its opposition. Two dozen dissidents, including intellectuals, clerics and a prominent blogger, had been rounded up, charged under anti-terrorism laws and allegedly tortured. A human rights group that had received U.S. funding was taken over by the government. Human Rights Watch had concluded that “what we are seeing in Bahrain these days is a return to full-blown authoritarianism.”

Clinton’s response? Extravagant and virtually unqualified praise for Bahrain’s ruling al-Khalifa family. “I am very impressed by the progress that Bahrain is making on all fronts – economically, politically, socially,” she declared as she opened a town hall meeting. Her paeans to Bahrain’s “commitment to democracy” continued until a member of parliament managed to gain access to the microphone and asked for a response to the fact that “many people are arrested, lawyers and human rights activists.”

Clinton’s condescending reply was a pure apology for the regime. “It’s easy to be focused internally and see the glass as half empty. I see the glass as half full,” she said. “Yes, I mean people are arrested and people should have due process . . . but on the other hand the election was widely validated. . . . So you have to look at the entire picture.”

So much for a fresh start on human rights. Clinton’s Bahrain visit reflected what seems to be an intractable piece of the Obama administration’s character: a deeply ingrained resistance to the notion that the United States should publicly shame authoritarian regimes or stand up for the dissidents they persecute.

Yes, Obama made a public statement the day an empty chair represented Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo at the Nobel peace prize ceremony, and both he and Clinton issued statements last week when Russia’s best-known political prisoner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was convicted on blatantly trumped-up charges. But in all sorts of less prominent places and cases, the U.S. voice remains positively timid – or not heard at all.

After Egypt’s terrible elections in November, in which ballot boxes were blatantly stuffed and the opposition brutally suppressed, the administration’s commentary was limited to bland statements issued by “the office of the press secretary” at State and the spokesman of the National Security Council. Three weeks earlier, at a widely watched joint press conference in Washington with Egypt’s foreign minister, Clinton made no mention of the elections, the crackdown or anything else related to human rights.

In Latin America, friends of the United States marvel at its passivity as Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega systematically crush civil society organizations and independent media. “I don’t see a clear policy,” Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez – a good example of the sort of dissident Obama promised to defend – told me.

When the administration touts its record it often focuses on the declarations it has engineered by multilateral forums, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council. The ideology behind this is that the United States is better off working through such bodies than acting on its own. The problem is that, in practice, this is not true. Set aside for the moment the fact that the U.N. council is dominated by human rights abusers who devote most of the agenda to condemnations of Israel. Who has heard what the council said about, say, the recent events in Belarus? The obvious answer: far fewer people than would have noticed if the same critique came from Obama or Clinton.

Back to Bahrain for a moment. The “entire picture” Clinton referred to is that virtually no one, outside the Bahraini royal family and the State Department, shared her judgment that the parliamentary election was “free and fair.” The dissidents are still on trial; their defense lawyers resigned en masse last month because of the court’s refusal to consider any of their motions.

Recently, Human Rights Watch spoke up again on behalf of Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, who has been repeatedly harassed by security forces, prevented from traveling and called a terrorist by the state news agency.

Has the Obama administration spoken up for this relatively obscure and ‘voiceless’ dissident.  Of course not.”

Comment:   This listing doesn’t include the vacuum the president’s diffidence has caused in Latin America regarding Human Rights.

Feminism’s Hysterical Intolerance Wins; Navy Bureaucrat Fires Captain Owen Honors

It is likely the pandering came from the Obama White House the center of contemporary American witch’s brew.  Even though the videos were shown several years before the Obama  panderers  arrived in Washington serving  their leftwing  politically inspired and inspiring sanctimonies,  the slime of spilt oil was already slick on ship decks to catch someone ‘to set a Marxist example’ of State-managed ‘equality’.  

Why wasn’t this video exposed two years ago….three?   Why the drama in the sacred halls of ABC and other Leftwing echo chambers?   Will someone, hopefully an honest reporter, follow the trail of these video.  Who knew what and when?…..

I hope Owen Honors resigns from the Navy, not for his juvenile prurience or humor, but in protest and dignity.

Gays and some other juveniles running America beyond Captain Honors need to grow up quickly……Otherwise, the American people themselves may mature into enough  wisdom to understand how the censorship of Left Wing Political Correctness is killing their once beloved America  as a society of free adults.   If they do, there will be anger and unhappiness.   Intolerance can last for awhile but  not forever.

This article below is from the Wall Street Journal, written by Julain Barnes.

“A top Navy admiral permanently relieved the commander of the USS Enterprise for showing a “profound lack of good judgment” by recording offensive and vulgar videos on a previous tour of duty.

Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., commander of Navy Fleet Forces, said he was immediately and permanently relieving Capt. Owen Honors from command of the Enterprise, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. He also said the investigation would continue into how the videos were made and how complaints about them were handled, suggesting others could be disciplined for their involvement.

“His profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command,” Adm. Harvey said.

Adm. Harvey announced that Capt. Dee Mewbourne, the former commander of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower, would take immediate command of the Enterprise.

Adm. Harvey said that Capt. Honors’ service as commanding officer of the Enterprise had not been called into question. But he said that the videos Capt. Honors recorded in 2006 and 2007 while serving as executive officer of the Enterprise, the second in command of the ship, were inappropriate.

In the videos, shown on the ship’s closed-circuit television system, Capt. Honors used offensive terms for gays, simulated masturbation and introduced a skit showing two women showering together. The videos were made public over the weekend by the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

Navy officials said the service would investigate the actions of other senior officers who knew about the videos, to determine what actions they took, or failed to take, when the videos were made or shown.

Capt. Honors, whom the Navy didn’t make available and who hasn’t commented on the matter, has been reassigned to an administrative position at Fleet Forces, based in Norfolk, Va. Being relieved of command is typically an action that will end an officer’s military career.

The videos come to light as the military is preparing to allow homosexuals to serve openly. With last month’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Pentagon intends to soon begin training programs designed to ensure that gays can serve without being harassed.

Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said Tuesday that Capt. Honors’s videos should never have been made, no matter what the law was about gays serving openly. “Those kinds of comments were inappropriate before the law was repealed,” he said. “The culture across all the services is about treating people with dignity and respect.”

The videos have raised questions about whether Navy culture tolerates slurs against gays and denigrating comments about women. Twenty years ago, in 1991, the Navy was ensnared in the Tailhook scandal, after a number of women said they were sexually assaulted at a large gathering of Naval aviators.

Since then, military services have tried to create a more welcoming environment, and have warned officers against using crude language to describe women, gays or racial minorities. Col. Lapan and other military officials said the videos made by Capt. Honors were aberrations and didn’t reflect the military’s current culture.”

Comment:  I, for one, apologize for this sham, which never should have made it out of Navy games.  No human being, including gays, should be proud of being the objects of pandering.   I curse Democrats for this event, but to be honest, Republicans would have behaved exactly the same way, I fear…..pandering.

Ladies at CNN Aghast, Reporting on Horrors Faced by 6,000 “People” on Enterprise

The Navy has decided to relieve Commander Owen Honors of his command of the USS Enterprise as a result of the “raunchy videos” shot as a gag when Honors was the executive officer of the carrier in 2006 and 2007. Honors, a former Top Gun pilot and captain of the ship since 2009, will remain in the Navy but will be replaced immediately in order to keep the Enterprise on schedule for its deployment this month to the Middle East in support of the war in Afghanistan. CNN reports that the Pentagon is concerned over the “command climate” on the Enterprise, as well as other ships, and will probe why none of the senior officers brought this to anyone’s attention:

     (In the good old Soviet Union no matter in which decade every segment of society was under investigation to make certain Party speech and Party policy were in synch everywhere by everyone.  Citizens no longer dared speak out of doors for fear of being overheard.  Indoors no one was certain where to speak for fear of being ‘bugged’.  Citizens in or out of government noted for saying politically incorrect phrases suggesting ‘inappropriate’ thoughts by the Communist Party, often disappeared never to be heard from again.

In the good old USA the Political Party devoted to protect the frailness of female hysterics with the unwritten laws of political correctness operate similarly but by the Democrat Party establishment and Republican tagalongs.  Victims are not heard from again, but, as yet, not killed.)

The Navy has decided to relieve Commander Owen Honors of his command of the USS Enterprise as a result of the “raunchy videos” shot as a gag when Honors was the executive officer of the carrier in 2006 and 2007. Honors, a former Top Gun pilot and captain of the ship since 2009, will remain in the Navy but will be replaced immediately in order to keep the Enterprise on schedule for its deployment this month to the Middle East in support of the war in Afghanistan. CNN reports that the Pentagon is concerned over the “command climate” on the Enterprise, as well as other ships, and will probe why none of the senior officers brought this to anyone’s attention:

Click here to listen to the Ladies at CNN report on the 2006 tragic sufferings of  over 5,500 ‘people’ in the  “Incident at the Enterprise”:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/04/video-navy-relieves-commander-over-raunchy-videos/