Say Merry Christmas! (No More Politically Correct BS!)

Watch the whole video to see where it's going...

Nuclear Iran

University of Wisconsin discriminates against Whites and Asians

9/11 Tribute: Too Upsetting for Muslim and Chinese Students

by Jason Mattera

If you thought that something as innocuous as putting up 3,000 American flags on school grounds to pay tribute to those murdered on September 11 couldn’t be controversial, you haven’t been to Marietta College​.

Administrators at this liberal arts college in southeast Ohio are threatening to cancel a 9/11 memorial planned by their students if flags from other countries are not observed in the activities as well

“I was taken aback by this decision,” said Sarah Snow, an Alabama native and junior at Marietta. “Our school should help students put on events, not set up obstacles, especially when we’re trying to honor those fallen.”

It all started when Snow, the president of the Marietta College Republicans, approached her Student Life department to get approval to participate in the 9/11 Never Forget Project. In addition to organizing a candlelight vigil, Snow sought to plant 3,000 American flags around campus starting this Sunday morning. She received approval from the Office of Student Life on June 23, more than two months ago. But when she returned to campus for the fall semester, days before the memorial was to begin, the vice president of Student Life, Robert Pastoor, vowed to terminate the tribute unless foreign flags were mixed together with American ones.

“He [Robert Pastoor] insisted we add the international flags for the reason that it was a ‘global perspective’ school,” Snow told HUMAN EVENTS in explaining Pastoor’s basis for interfering with the College Republicans’ memorial. He continued, she noted, by saying, “Other nationalities were killed in the twin towers as well” and that Marietta must “consider how the Muslim and Chinese students will feel about the [American flag] display.”

Read More...

First Responders not invited to 9/11 ceremony

Rand Paul Smackdown!

Stop The Global Warming Lies

by Jim Lacey

Whether it’s energy policy, global warming, or nuclear waste, if our regulators get the wrong answer, they make one up.

Effective policy cannot be built on lies and myths. But when it comes to energy policy that seems to be all we have to go on. A report recently released by the EPA, for instance, claims that by 2020 regulations enacted under the Clean Air Act will provide an annual benefit of $2 trillion for a cost of $66 billion, a 30-to-1 return on investment. And that is the EPA’s low estimate. In a best-case scenario, the benefits could reach as high as $5.5 trillion, a 90-to-1 return, or $48,000 for every American household. Where do I go for my check?

Unfortunately, the EPA is lying. Not about everything: The $66 billion cost is real, though probably low-balled. EPA regulations will most definitely remove that $66 billion from the economy, making it unavailable for job-creating investment. But what of the $2 trillion in benefits? According to analysis by economists W. David Montgomery and Anne E. Smith, these gains are an illusion. The $2 trillion figure was based on nothing more than a survey asking Americans how much they would pay to live an extra few weeks or months, or to have a little extra visibility on a clear day.

The EPA estimate, therefore, has nothing to do with job creation, economic growth, or real economic output. It has everything to do with hiding the fact that EPA regulations will place a crushing burden on the economy. The EPA knows this. In fact, in the same report that purports to prove that we all gain from more regulations, there is a real macroeconomic study, one done by EPA economists rather than policy officials. They find that past EPA rules slowed the economy by $79 billion in 2010, and will slow it by $110 billion in 2020.

Poof! In the EPA’s own report a $2 trillion annual benefit turns into a $110 billion annual loss. That is a lot of jobs.

The lies and myth-making do not end there. Last month the infamous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once again let its global-warming agenda get ahead of the facts. The IPCC claimed that “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.”

We had to wait a few weeks for the supporting evidence. It turns out that to get to that 80 percent number the folks at the IPCC threw out 163 scenarios where their models did not give them the answer they wanted. Only on the 164th try did they finally get an answer they liked. Moreover, the report the IPCC used as the basis for its claim turns out to have been written by Greenpeace activists in conjunction with a lobbying group for renewable energy. No real scientists or engineers were involved. But the story gets even better. For the IPCC model to work, they researchers had to assume the world will be using less energy in 2050 than it is today. By that date there may be 2 billion more people on the planet, all clamoring for their fair share of energy resources. But somehow the IPCC thinks we will be using less energy!

Read More...

California to Require Gay Agenda in School Textbooks

California to require homosexual/transgender

Americans added to school textbooks

Marine Not Allowed To Wear Uniform For High School Graduation

Tennessee Bans Freedom of Speech

by Aaron M. Kelly
 

If you haven't heard about it, you probably don't read American newspapers: Tennessee's legislature has amended its laws to ban causing people to become "emotionally distressed" from images posted online.

The new law, which comes into effect on July 1, 2011, will make a criminal out of anyone who, "Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose."

The methods in the subdivision (a)(1) that is referred to include telephone, writing, or electronic communication, including text messaging, fax messages, e-mail, and Internet service.

In addition to other triggering clauses, such as making the communication with malicious intent, the communication or display of image can trigger the offence if done:

"In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed."

Interestingly, the "communicates with another person" provision already existed, so Tennesseans have been living with what seems to be a blatantly unconstitutional law for awhile now. What the new law does is to also make publishing pictures which disturb people an offence. To be clear, the law does not require that an accused even directly contact the offended individual. It describes the offended party as the "victim," but makes it an offence to communicate with another "person" in a way that might offend that "victim." Clearly, even communicating with third parties without a legitimate purpose can result in a conviction.

What is markedly absent from the law is what exactly constitutes a "legitimate purpose." This means that as long as the elements of the offence are made out, a case can be brought against someone for posting an image which disturbs someone else, and the accused will be forced to argue that they met whatever the vague standard of a "legitimate purpose" happens to be.

Here are some situations which, if the court does not find they have a "legitimate purpose," would lead to someone being convicted of a crime in the State of Tennessee:

Read More...

Geert Wilders: The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe

Police Testing Standards Lowered for Blacks and Hispanics

Herman Cain: You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the U.S.

Gene Simmons Slams President Obama's Israel Policy

Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in 'Action Comics' #900

by Laura Hudson

After recently undertaking a journey to walk -- not fly -- across the United States in the "Grounded" storyline and reconnect with the country and everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics #900...

...Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way," from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the "American way" is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

The key scene takes place in "The Incident," a short story in Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman consults with the President's national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Read More...

Justice Dept. forces Dayton to lower Police recruit standards

Allen West on Multiculturalism

Political Correctness Prevented FBI from Stopping Maj. Hasan

by John Sexton

Today the Senate Homeland Security Committee released an independent report on the Ft. Hood shootings. The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan’s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness.

Read More...

Christian Business, Chick-fil-A, in the Left's Crosshairs

by Michelle Malkin

Here's a modest proposal for liberals who say they support job creation: Stop smearing successful, law-abiding private companies whose values don't comport with yours. I'm looking at you, New York Times.

Chick-fil-A is an American success story. Founded by Georgian entrepreneur Truett Cathy in 1946, the family-owned chicken-sandwich chain is one of the country's largest fast-food businesses. It employs some 50,000 workers across the country at 1,500 outlets in nearly 40 states and the District of Columbia. The company generates more than $2 billion in revenue and serves millions of happy customers with trademark Southern hospitality.

So, what's the problem? Well, Chick-fil-A is run by devout Christians who believe in strong marriages, devoted families and the highest standards of character for their workers. The restaurant chain's official corporate mission is to "glorify God" and "enrich the lives of everyone we touch." The company's community service initiatives, funded through its WinShape Foundation, support foster care, scholarship, summer camp and marriage enrichment programs. On Sunday, all Chick-fil-A stores close so workers can spend the day at worship and rest.

For the left, these Biblically based corporate principles constitute high social justice crimes and misdemeanors.

Read More...

Shut Up