Universities vs Free Speech

Yet again one of the nations “leading” universities (Columbia) has stepped forward and shown their commitment to fostering the open exchange of ideas in an accepting and safe environment. An environment where everyone can posit their ideas and have them accepted as valid points of view for civil discussion amongst all. That is, of course, so long as your thoughts and ideas don’t run contrary to those of the entrenched elitist left.

Currently there is an effort to bring ROTC back to Columbia’s campus. Open hearings are taking place where individuals are able to make their case either for or against its return. Of course, in an esteemed bastion of liberal thinking where all points are to receive their hearing in an open and unbiased atmosphere, you know you will be able to hear both the pro and the con in a civil setting. Right?

Wrong!

Yet again, the left is only interested in people being able to freely express their opinions in an unbiased setting so long as it is a liberal opinion. Case in point, I bring you Anthony Maschek, a 28 year old freshman who rose to speak. He was laughed at, jeered, heckled, and called a racist for supporting the return of ROTC to Columbia’s campus. 

Now you really need to understand who Anthony Maschek is. He is an Iraq war veteran. He received the Purple Heart for wounds he received there. He spent two years in Walter Reed Army Hospital recovering from 11 gunshot wounds he received in a firefight. Both of his legs were broke as well as receiving injuries to his abdomen and chest. Anthony Maschek is a HERO, and these spineless little jellyfish have the temerity to heckle and jeer this man as he tries to make his point for the reintroduction of ROTC to Columbia’s campus.

He told the assembled audience "It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting. There are bad men out there plotting to kill you." 

In the city where 3000 of these whiney little ingrates fellow citizens were killed by just such bad men, they laughed at and jeered this man who risked his life and suffered bodily injury to protect them from just such men. And this is the way one of our exalted institutions of higher learning has taught them to value the exchange of ideas? Their parents should demand their money back and tell their little larvae to get their pampered butts out into the real world and see how life really is. 

The professoriate should no longer be allowed to be an incestuous breeding ground for democratic hating 60’s hippie refugees and their intellectual offspring. I believe that we should institute a hiring rule that before someone can be hired into a college or university in a teaching position, they must first have spent a minimum of 10 years working in a nonacademic setting. I believe that if this were instituted there would be a drastic diminution of instructors advocating positions and ideas that run contrary to the American ethos. 

No, I do not want their ideas banned from college campuses. I believe that all ideas deserve a free, fair and open hearing. I just hope for there to be a semi level playing field for this exchange to take place. Not the current climate where the left attempts to brow beat and intimidate the right into submission. One where a war hero who has risked his life and limb for the others freedom, has to put up with being called names and laughed at. 

That would be my idea of a college or university that deserved to be called an “institution of higher learning”. One that truly encouraged the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, not the regimentation of thought down any one path.

A Curious Question Of Why?

OK, let me start off saying I’m not a middle east expert or even close, just an old midwestern farmboy, but I’ve been trying to keep an eye on what’s happening in the middle east and I must say, it doesn’t look good.

First Tunisia has a “popular” revolt and it’s government is overthrown. Next Egypt goes down like the Hindenburg. Now Libya is in revolt and the 30 year pretender Kadaffi is firing live rounds on his populace. This after he came to power through revolt. (I must admit there appears to be some symmetry in that.) Bahrain is dealing with uprisings as are Yemen and Jordan. And to add the cherry to the top this little crazy sunday, Iran is having riots as well.

The whole middle east seems to be preparing to explode. From the look of it, with the out layers being Iran and Libya, all of these countries are marginally friendly to the US and not overly aggressive to Israel. If I were to hazard a guess, I would guess that Iran was behind most of these uprisings. I believe they have seen some unrest within the people and have fomented these revolts through organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. They just didn’t expect the worm to turn on them. The revolt fever has come back and struck at home. Aquavelvajad and the mullahs are now facing a real challenge from pro western forces. Forces who don’t care to be ruled by the weird beards any more.

So what has allowed this to take place? My guess is that our taking Saddam down in Iraq and allowing for a democratic government to take hold has removed a tether that had formerly been on Iran. Prior to the fall of Saddam, Iraq and Iran seemed to be waging a war on who was to become the nominal leader in the middle east. Both had visions of grander. Seeing themselves as the leader of all islam. As they were involved in a shooting war with Iraq, Iran could not turn it’s focus outward. When we removed Saddam from the equation, this allowed the weird beards of Iran to think they had a free hand to take over leadership of all the islamic lands and spread jihad throughout the world. You can see this by the role played by the Muslim Brotherhood and who is backing them. You can already here them calling for war against Israel. In another move to try and start this, Iran is increasing the level of provocation by sending war ships through the Suez Canal. This is a clear attempt to goad Israel into doing something they could use as justification for an attack as well as a rallying point for all the muslims.

Watching all of this take place I have to wonder why it is that our current president was so quick to jump in and tell the Egyptian leaders they need to go and that we are on the side of the protesters, while we are curiously silent on what is going on in Iran. In Egypt the Iranian backed Muslim Brotherhood is clearly pulling strings behind the scenes, while publicly calling for war against Israel. 

On the other hand, in Iran we have a pro western uprising taking place, and for the second time in as many years we are about as outspoken as a mouse at a cat convention. I gotta as “Why”? Why is it that our administration is so quick to speak up for those who are clearly our enemies and so reticent to speak out and support those who would be our friends?

Mr President, Who's Your Number One? US or UN?

To those lonely few of you who read me on a regular basis, I apologize for the lag in posts this past week. It’s been a little hectic lately. 

Looking over the headlines this morning I see where the President is starting on a campaign to strengthen the UN. Well isn’t that just like him. 

The UN being one of the most Anti US organizations around and our President, who is sworn to protect the US, wants to strengthen it. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

Clearly another move toward weakening the US in order to move closer to a one world government. Why else would the sworn top defender of the US propose strengthening an organization that takes our money and supplies, repackages them to say it’s coming from the UN, then distributes it while belittling the US and working to undermine us at every turn? This is the same organization that puts countries like Iran and Libya on women’s and humans rights councils. This is the organization that sends “peace keeping” troupes into war torn countries and then turns a blind eye as they rape women and children. This is the organization that has been shown to have been in collusion with Saddam Hussain in defrauding and misappropriating the resources meant to assist the Iraqi people in the oil for food program. 

What could possibly go wrong from the US perspective by strengthening such an organization?

And how does the top defender of the US plan to sell us this bill of goods? He’s going to say that we need to build up the UN because if we starve it out of existence, people will look to us to be the arbiter in all these world situations. Well the truth be told, folks who really are looking for a fair shake in these troubled areas will still look to the US, knowing full well that nothing good will come from the UN being involved.

Personally, I think we ought to kick the UN out of the US. Maybe take an old aircraft carrier, strip all the military stuff out of it and then give it to the UN for their new headquarters. From that point on we would withdraw from the organization and they can do what ever they want. They could float around where ever they want, the reps could fly out to it, and they could do and say what ever they want with all the funds (or lack there of) they get from their members. 

If we felt the need for some organization that really operated for the good of the world, we could help sponsor a new organization that wasn’t out for our destruction or diminution. Then when folks were really in need you would see who they turned to, the UN with it’s socialistic leanings and anti democratic agenda, or to a real organization dedicated to the betterment of the world.

Just a thought.

Melting Pot vs Tossed Salad

Hooray for British Prime Minister Cameron. He has come out and said Britton in particular and Europe in general have been to hesitant and even fearful of addressing abhorrent ideas within their societies. Extremist views that run counter to that of their general societies.

By failing to address these groups who are preaching against the values and morays of the larger society, breeding grounds have been allowed to develop within their own borders for those who would overthrow them. This is foolish at best and suicidal in the extreme.

America used to think of itself as a melting pot. When people came to this country, they accepted it’s over arching philosophy. Everyone accepted this country as one of opportunity. If you came in and worked hard and made the best of your opportunities, you could change your station in life. If you came in and made the least of your opportunities, you could change your station in life in the opposite direction. It was up to you. Everyone, man/woman, black/white, yellow/brown, gay/straight, hindu/christian, it made no difference. If you came in and made the effort to become an American, and then took advantage of your opportunities, you could succeed. We were all the same as far as our ability to take advantages of the opportunities presented us.

Then something strange happened. 

The analogy changed. I actually remember this happening. It went from a “melting pot” to a “tossed salad”. We didn’t realize it at the time. We thought we were being “sensitive” to the “many and wonderful cultures making up the mosaic that formed this country”. 

In reality it was a shifting of the tectonic plates of our culture. It opened the door for the rise of hyphenated Americans. This shift from people seeing themselves as Americans to seeing them selves as hyphenated Americans has led to the loss of a unifying ethos. People see themselves as members of subgroups, not as part of the American culture as a whole. They hold more allegiance to the subgroup than they do to the larger culture. They see themselves as MUSLIM-Americans, or AFRICAN-Americans, or MEXICAN-Americans. They live their lives with their foremost allegiances going to the front half of the hyphenation instead of the back half. 

This type of thinking is tearing the country apart. When subgroups, no matter the flavor, place more value on their little group than those of the country as a whole, we are placing the country on a toboggan headed down a step icy slope to oblivion. This must be stopped. If we are to remain a country, we must stamp out these abhorrent groups within our borders. The country must come first. We must defend it’s principles. Our Constitution. In this country you are free to be whom ever you want to be and do what ever you want to do, up and until, it infringes on the next person’s rights to the same. And you must be willing to fight to defend that other person’s rights to be different from you too have different beliefs from you, up and until their beliefs require you to believe and act like them. At which point they must be forcefully rejected, even up to the point of expulsion. Send them back to where ever their ideas emanate from. 

If they are unwilling to accept our culture, they should leave or be expelled! Unlike some countries, if you don’t like it here, you are free to leave. 

Choosing a country is much like choosing a spouse. Don’t marry someone expecting to change them and don’t choose a country expecting to change it. Marry someone for who they are and choose a country for what it is.

For these very reasons it is essential that we secure our borders. Not to keep people in but to control for those who would come in. Immigrants coming to this country must be willing to learn the language, culture and morays and accept them as the dominant culture. If they are unwilling to do this, they should be rejected. If they are already here and choose not to accept this, they should be given a one way ticket out.

Direction of Affects

Christiane Amanpour, who first became a visible on air correspondent with CNN, is the ABC anchor for This Week. She was born to an Iranian airline executive father and British mother. She grew up in Iran under the Shah. After her initial education she was sent to England where she attended a private all girls school. She finished her education at the University of Rhode Island Journalism School where she earned a Bachelors degree.

Christiane has been an outspoken liberal voice for as long as I can recall. Her reports always seem to take on an anti-American tone. When given two contradictory reports, she seemed to always give weight to the one that was least flattering to America. She seemed to be trying to ingratiate herself with those who were against the US. “HonestReporting” and the “Committee for Accurate in Middle East Reporting in America” both have accused her of inaccurate and biased reporting.

I see where today she was chased out of Tahrir Square in Egypt by a crowd shouting that they hate America. The car they retreated to and made their escape in had its doors kicked in and the windshield broken. I feel fairly certain that when she reports on this incident, the tone of her report will be that it is America’s misdeeds coming back on it that caused these folks to attack her.

Now don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that we have been saints in our dealings with Egypt in particular or the Middle East in general, but I would like to raise the concept of “Direction of Effects” here. This is sort of a chicken or egg kind of a concept. And in this instance I ask, was it really anything specific that America had done in Egypt that has raised these folks ire against us, or, is it people like Ms. Amanpour telling folks that America is bad. After hearing how bad America is for years, these folks are ready to channel their anger at us with little to no real evidence. 

Now Ms. Amanpour and her ilk are not the sole purveyors of misinformation and hate against America. Virtually all of the radical Islamic clerics spew unfounded vitriol against us. They do this in the same way the Nazis did it to the Jews and the Gypsies. They were and we are an easy target to vilify. And with an illiterate to poorly educated at best, populace, it is easy to convince them to blame others for their conditions. It is easy to incite the ignorant with lies and innuendos. Particularly when they come from authority figures like TV News personalities and their pseudo religious leaders. They point to us or Israel and say we are the reasons they are having dirt stew for supper. That we have taken everything and left them with nothing, when in fact, those who could have directly helped them have done nothing. Their leaders have intentionally kept them living in squalor by keeping them uneducated and ill informed. Then feeding them whatever crap they need to to keep themselves in power. 

We channel billions of dollars in aid to countries like Egypt and Pakistan, and do they use it for its intended purposes for the benefit of the populace? NO! 70% or better of it gets siphoned off as graft by the very folks who tell the illiterate masses how evil we are. All aided by the likes of Ms. Amanpour.

Well, I say if Ms. Amanpour and her fellow travelers are set upon by violent crowds, to a large degree, they have brought it upon themselves. And I for one will lose no sleep worrying about their safety.