To either support his own guilt feelings or to accommodate the gay marriage lobby or because of pressure from his son and/or his wife Republican Congressman Rob Portman has turned the meaning of marriage and libertarianism on its head. See the following confused explanation of his new stance:
Proud’ Dad Portman Flips to Support Gay Son on Same-Sex Marriage.
I cannot claim to know what is going on in Portman's head; but, I can evaluate what he says publicly and the policy stand he takes. The libertarian position can only be defined as one where the state has nothing to do with marriage. It would be fine and justifiable if he had taken that position and said that he had "re-thought" the question now that his son is at Yale and gay that state policy should say nothing about marriage. Here he would be saying that government should get out of any recognition of, or any involvement with, marriage. That would not be a stand for "gay marriage" or any definition of marriage. It would be saying that people should be allowed to live as they want and with whom they want to and it is not the state's business.
But, Portman does make it the state's business.
If the state is going to recognize marriage, from a conservative point of view (and a libertarian one), it can only be because the state recognizes some overwhelming state, or societal interest. These interests must at least be in the area of survival and/or national, i.e. state, security. Nothing here would lead someone, under any circumstance, to support "gay marriage." And neither can Representative Portman.
The state has for a long time recognized marriage as exclusively between one man and one women because of long standing historical and religious reasons. Today under this theory it would be legitimate to exclude "gay marriage" under conservative concepts; but not under libertarian ones. Libertarian concepts would at best say that there is no place for the state to be in the marriage definition business. There are many, many definitions of marriage. Why would one or two take precedence over all the rest?
This is Portman's betrayal and the lie presented by his son. It is also the lie which most gay activist present.
The only, and I mean only, reason that the state can justify in having an interest in marriage is national suicide as it relates to national security. There is nothing in being a conservative or a libertarian that requires an individual or a society to commit suicide. Therefore the one and sole state interest in marriage is the consequence of that coupling, which is more children. Only the increase in fertility, i.e. new babies, justifies and explains the state's interest in marriage. Under these principles, there would be greater justification for polygamy than there is from gay marriage. (All states have a greater justification for polygamy than gay marriage; although, there are other social problems with polygamy.)
All these couplings have minimal advantage or no advantage to fertility: gay marriage, bestiality, general fetishes, co-habitation, marriage to inanimate objects, etc. As a consequence, the state cannot and should not have anything to say, as far as policy, about these.
Portman, understandably as a bereaved father, has turned state policy on its head when it comes to gay marriage. He not only betrayed his principles; he also stood the conservative and libertarian cause on its head. There is no reason for him to continue in politics representing conservative/libertarian ideas.
| | | | | | |
At this time of the year, I want to wish all my Christian friends and supporters the best of hope and peace during this Holy Day season and may you all have a happy and joyous Christmas season. I want all of you to think about what will really have consequences for Christians in the many future Holy seasons to come.
Read the following article to see what is the coming in the new year for many Christian communities whose only sin was being Christian and in Islamic countries.
Christianity 'close to extinction' in Middle East - Telegraph.
All of Christianity and its leaders have been telling you to be good in charity and be good to your fellow man. This is all a good thing, a very good thing. Christmas Holy season does call for charity upon the Christian flock.
But, the tough charity is the one that has risks and many times negative consequences to the charity giver. That is the charity promoting and protecting the existence of Christianity and free Christians in the lands of its origin, the Middle East. If that fight is lost, how well does anyone really believe Christianity will survive? Without a living history, which is what is being destroyed by Muslims, no religion can survive on "purified air" or "luft" as the Germans would refer to it.
It is now time for all G-d fearing people to make a stand against the end of Middle Eastern Christianity by Muslims so that they too can have a Merry Christmas for centuries.
Posted on December 25, 2012 at 03:00 PM in Anti-Religion, Christians, Current Affairs, End of America, Islamacism, Islamic Terrorism, Middle East, Obama and Middle East, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Africa, Blackfriars Oxford, Christian, Christianity, Christmas, Christmas and holiday season, Germans, Islam, Islamism, List of Muslim-majority countries, Merry Christmas, Middle East, Muslim, Religion and Spirituality
| | | | | | |
The culture wars are alive and well. In spite of reams of articles and books attempting to argue otherwise, reality creeps in to show us how divided as a nation we remain. The newness of this culture war is reflected by a complete divide between those who accept the values of America and those who do not. Recent studies have further shown that as students graduate from high school there acceptance of the First Amendment and tolerance is extremely low. What is threatening to our national values is that these same students, interviewed after completion of college, further reduce their tolerance in their support of free speech and freedom of conscience.
Yesterday was Chick-fil-A appreciation day. Throughout the United States hundred of thousands of supporters came out to support the argument against gay marriage rights of the CEO of Chick-fil-A. What he essentially said is that there is no place in America for marriage between the same gender. It is an oxymoron. This cultural division is not only reflected in this singular event; but also in all the opinion polls. In addition, wherever it has been voted on, the majority of Americans have rejected "gay marriage." What is important to understand is that Chick-fil-A's CEO and the majority of Americans reject marriage between people of the same gender; but, most of them DO NOT reject the extension of civil rights to gays.
BUT, what if the CEO of Chick-fil-A was a practicing Muslim? First, he would have to agree with everything that the Christian CEO of Chick-fil-A said about "gay marriage" as being an affront to G-d. But in Islam it is more than that. To be an affront to G-d is a blasphemy that requires the punishment of death. For Islam, under Sharia Law, the only answer to being gay is death. The issue of "gay marriage" does not even arise in Islam because it lacks any basis in reality. You cannot have a religious acceptance of what does not exist.
For Muslims, the solution to the problem of "gayness" is the end of any civil rights, i.e. First Amendment rights, to those tainted individuals. Christians can say, in the worst case, "hate the sin; but, love the sinner." There is not comparable concept in Islam. In Islam, as is practiced by law in ALL Islamic countries, to be gay is to be dead, either by law or by family -- the religion does not care. This is a far cry from debating the issue of how is marriage to be defined.
The sole "evil" that Chick-fil-A is accused of is not having a gay acceptable definition of marriage. Chick-fil-A's understanding of marriage is supported by over half of all Americans -- nothing strange about it. But, all Muslim CEO's belief must be that gays must be eradicated. (From a theological point of view, there is probably some difference about how gays would be treated if one is a Muslim gay or an infidel gay.) Nonetheless, the perspective of a Muslim CEO concerning gays remains death or castration.
The Shariah Law of Islam is not the central point. The significance is the selective treatment by politicians in the United States of Christians as opposed to Muslims. This hypocrisy is illustrated remarkably well by the mayors of Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. The liberal Democrats continues their hypocritical rejection of all things Christian and a love affair with all things Muslim.
If one is going to have an issue with what a Christian head of a corporation believes and makes known publicly, then there is no basis whatsoever for allowing any business to be carried on by a Muslim who has any religious belief and practices. When the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, said "the values of Chick-fil-A's CEO are not Chicago's values," what does he say about all the Muslims running businesses and corporations in Chicago whose religion calls and demands the denial of all civil rights to gays? Are these Chicago's values? To be consistent, the Mayors and the Democratic Party needs to reject all practicing Muslims. Or alternatively, have Muslims give up Sharia Law as being inherently un-American.
The liberal Democrats love affair with Islam will continue to America's detriment. Christianity will continue to be denied and demonized by these same liberals. The fight for factual honesty and the end of hypocrisy must be joined and fought by all who believe in the legitimacy of the First Amendment to the American Constitution.
Technorati Tags: Chicago, Chick-Fil-A, Chief executive officer, Christian, culture war, Democratic Party, First Amendment, free speech, gay marriage, intolerance, Islam, Mayor of Chicago, Muslim, tolerance, United States
| | | | | | |
Frontpage magazine and Jamie Glasov did a wonderful job of interviewing me and getting out the issues that "got me here." You can read about this in the following link:
I have to say that the only issue that needs to be further understood is that I, and honestly some others, have been fighting this battle for over 19 years on campus. If you are not a Muslim, but religious, if you are pro-Israel, if you are right of center politically, you will constantly be harrassed, intimidated, and demonized on almost all of our universities.
What is sad is that most of this is being done with our own tax dollars.
This is what the people of America need to understand very, very quickly. The Muslims and their liberal allies are attacking religion, not Islam of course, and undermining the First Amendment, using your money. All state institutions need to immediately audit their state universities for their usage of funds and their rules and regulations that permit Muslims to undermine the First Amendment and replace it with their version of Sharia Law.
How is this done? Very simply -- in Islam being "offended" is a legal term. You are not allowed to "offend" Islam or Mohammad. It is punishable in a variety of ways up to and including execution. In the United States, offending someone is a badge of honor especially at a university. To paraphrase a man who knows much about higher education and the First Amendment, Adam Kissel of FIRE, if you, a student, are not being offended once a week, someone is cheating you out of an education.
That is the fight I have to finish.
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 07:10 AM in Academia, Anti-Religion, Christians, End of America, First Amendment, Higher Education, Islamacism, Islamic Terrorism, Jews, Purdue University, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
| | | | | | |
This is to inform my readers that Purdue University has decided to institute a formal investigation of this blog. Under the confidentiality requirements which this state university operates, I cannot reveal any of the details. But I do have an obligation to inform my readers when what they are reading is being investigated by the State of Indiana, or any other governmental body.
For those of you in Indiana, and pay taxes, now you know where your money, at least in part, is being utilized. I have said from the begining that the attempt here, the goal here, is to close any dissent on my part. This dissent has been political, religious, and fiscal. I have presented conservative arguments, argued for the religious perspective, and have frequently battled with the University power structure about their misuse of State funds.
I am hoping for the best outcome. If you Purdue's violating the First Amendment offends you, call Rep. Sheila Klinker at 1-800-382-9842
Technorati Tags: academia. blog, anti-religion, dissent, Eisenstein, first amendment, free speech, Indiana, Indiana Legislature, investigation, Klinker, Purdue, Purdue University, religion, Sheila Klinder, taxes
| | | | | | |
Like my faculty colleagues – particularly Professors Colin Fewer and Alan Spector – I too am concerned about abuse of students by faculty. It is simply unconsciousable that any faculty would ever have a political perspective that differs from their students or from the majority of other faculty members. It is so wrong to offend anyone in America.
So, to all you students who feel as if you have been offended (particularly you Evangelical Christians – we all know how your world views are de-valued on a university campus) – please feel free to send me your anonymous audio tapes (edited, unedited – who cares) whenever you think your professors have said anything you deem crazy or inappropriate. I will gladly post them at my website. Did not get the crazy and/or inappropriate comments on tape? No problem. Just send me an email telling me what was said by whom, when, and where (what class, etc.) and I will post that information.
Remember, this in particular involves professors teaching inappropriate topics. These are such things as politics in an english class, or the environment in a spanish class, or global warming in a sociology class, etc.
Do your professors not give you enough work? Do you think they grade too easily, too harshly? What rumors have you heard about your professors? I will share your anonymous comments with the world! Just send them in. I will publicly post the Professor, the class and all pertinent information – while making sure you, the student, remain anonymous.
Professors Fewer and Spector have made it very clear that it is all of our jobs to help students in this manner, and I intend to do my part. And – do not worry – this is all anonymous.
| | | | | | |
The Purdue University Chronicle_03.19.12, a student newspaper, is almost exclusively devoted to me, lucky me. In it, the Purdue Calumet Social Justice Club, has gotten beside itself because I named the wrong person as its advisor on this blog. Correction: it is not currently Prof. Alan Spector, instead it is his (to the best of my knowledge) protege, another Marxist, Akili Shakur. This does not change the nature of the club nor who its real "in the background" adviser is. By the way, when was the club not under the organziation of either Spector, DeFelice, or both? These comments in the paper were written by the Treasurer of the SJC and is not a news story; but, a propaganda piece, oh excuse me, an opinion piece -- although it is not presented as such. Could this be because many of those on the Chronicle staff are also SJC members?
I have talked to Marxists in West Lafayette when these two Professors, Spector and DeFelice, went down there in the 1980's to sell them on the Progressive Labor Party, and its house organ The Challenge. That publication is about as over the top as one can get (if you have any doubt, just look at a copy of a recent Challenge.) Keep in mind that DeFelice and Spector had their students actually subscribe to this rag and made the library subscribe to this piece of garbage. Why is anyone suprised that the Chancellor picks on me? I wonder if it is because I am Jewish as well as conservative ("oh say it isn't so, he must be silenced!"). No one ever bothered DeFelice or Spector in over forty years of berating and baiting students every single day.
As the Treasurer of the SJC presents, it is true that the Social Justice Club (SJC) and the Criminal Justice Club (CJC) have been at war and have had "bad blood" between them for probably ten years. Though the SJC Treasurer has it completely wrong as to the reason why. The reason is, Prof. Spector, through the Black Student Union, identified Prof. Nicky Jackson as a racist. This was when she was a part of Criminal Justice/Sociology. They called her a racist in a public gathering in the Student Union. This reference was the central focus of the gathering. In addition, Akili Shakur and friends filed a harasment complaint against Prof. Jackson for racism and anti-Black behavior in Jackson's classes. This was fought for over three years by Prof. Jackson. The only, and I mean only person on PUC's campus, who stood by Prof. Jackson was me. It seemed at the time that I was the only one, except for Prof. Jackson who believed in free-speech. Prof. Tobin also chimed in and called Prof. Jackson a racist in her class around the years 2004/5. (My, how things change.) By the way, the only way Prof. Jackson won was to get a lawyer and go to court to sue the University's Board of Trustees for failure to protect her civil rights. The University knew it did not have a leg to stand on and settled. The final monetary settelment was not disclosed; but Spector and friends including the Administration had to back off. That is the reason, part of the agreement, that Prof. Jackson is in the History and Polical Science Department, not in Sociology (even though her Ph.D. is in sociology).
By the way, the University administration, under Chancellors Yaeckel and Cohen, told Jackson there is nothing they could and would do because it was free speech. The students who called her a racist and described her as delivering racist rantings were allowed to do that on campus because the University considered it free speech. As a matter of fact, Prof. Jackson had to go back to court because even after her initial legal agreement with the University, the Administration and faculty continued to treat her as a racist. Here is the official filing: Jackson_complaint. If anyone is interested in other people who filed on a free speech basis while calling the kettle black, here is Prof. DeFelice's filing: Gene_defelice_complaint.
What is sad for me today, is to see how someone, Prof. Jackson, who called me practically every day for over two years, crying for reassurance that the University will do the right thing and that truth and civility will prevail, in spite of what it looked like then, has so willingly decided to go after me in quite the same way that others went after her. I was the sole support person through all her hearings, her interviews, and her legal ideas and strategy. What is hurtful, is that she never even gave me the benefit of a doubt to even contact me first to see what was going on.
Now we have a revisionist history being written by the Treasurer of the SJC, when it comes to the CJC and Prof. Nicky Jackson. The blog they mention, which I did put up, focused on the collusion of the Chancellor and the faculty as was shown by emails I obtained through a FOIA request (by the way, I am still awaiting more emails from other FOIA requests). Not a single word showed up about this either in the Chronicle itself or in the SJC commentary. Is this what the anonymous professor was afraid of commenting about? He knows too much? (Given the public shellacking I have been taking, it is hard to believe that anyone on this campus is fearful of me retaliating against them). It truly was a plan to "get me." I wonder why? To this day, not a single independent piece of evidence has been presented to show that I have ever done anything. Everything has either been part of free-speech and academic freedom debate on a university campus or it is just items that students and faculty keep repeating that it is so. Continuous repetition does not make it true; only the perception of it becomes blurred. The one time that Spector asked me; I emphatically told him no, it was not said.
All this is ignored by everyone, the CJC, the SJC, Prof, Jackson, etc. What seems to be important is to get me. I wonder why? Have any of you?
Technorati Tags: academic freedom, administrator colluding, Akili Shakur, antisemitism, Chronicle, CJC, Cohen, collusion, Criminal Justice Club, Jackson, Jew, Purdue, Purdue Calumet, racism, SJC, Social Justice Club, Spector
| | | | | | |
These pages have discussed how Purdue University investigated my free speech for over three months. The overall investigation and consequences to me are not yet over. But that is a story that must wait for another day.
While the University found in my favor in 9 harassment/discrimination complaints, Purdue has done absolutely nothing to protect the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Essentially, if some person, known to me or not, in my class or not, files an harassment complaint of against me tomorrow for exercising my freedom of speech -- such as on this blog, I will again have my free speech investigated.
Investigating free speech is in and of itself against Federal law. In America, and only in America, can you not investigate someone because you disagree with what they said. No matter how strongly you disagree. This is the basis of the American democratic system. Without it, we are nothing. This is what Purdue University, its administation and the majority of its "liberal" leaning faculty, do not seem to care about.
I am a conservative Jew. This makes me a target. In the past, I vociferously criticized local Democrats. This meant I was a target (the previous Chancellor Cohen went out of his way to use illegally his administrative position to support local Democrats against my criticism-- particularly Mayor McDermott Jr.). See previous blogs NWI Comical Politics.
In the wake of my criticism of local Democrats -- and former Chancellor Cohen's efforts to defend those Democrats -- I became the target of baseless complaints; some claim that I hit on women, some claim I hit on men, some claim I harass atheists, some claim that I harass some or all religions; some claim I harass Hispanics, others claim I harass blacks -- the litany goes on and on.
Now I have turned my attention to the problem of radical Islam and highlighting the failure of moderate Muslims to criticize their co-religionists in hopes of stopping Islamic Jihad. And I was confining my comments to Facebook. Yet -- somehow -- even with a new Chancellor, Keon, who has been at PUC about 6 months, he decided to pick-up where Cohen left off.
What did the current Chancellor, Keon, do to continue Cohen's illegal targeting of me? Chancellor Keon decided that he would advise fellow faculty members to file hostile work environment complaints against me.
How do I know this? The answer lies in a series of emails that I was able to obtain through Indiana's freedom of information act. (I am still waiting for others. It has been over two months and the University is very slow in providing them to me.)
I am attaching the received emails that I have received for all to see: Download FOIA_emails_Tobin.
When reading and looking at these emails, the most important information to understand and digest is the degree of collusion between the faculty and Chancellor Keon, with the Department Head's help, to ensure that harassment complaints were filed against me, and what those complaints needed to include in order to be successful against me. Now -- remember -- Chancellor Keon is the person who must decide if wrongdoing occurred from a University investigation; thus, it is inappropriate for him to participate prior to the filing of complaints. It also shows a great effort to get as many faculty and students as possible to file complaints against me. I DID NOT KNOW ANY OF THIS WAS GOING ON AT ALL. I ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS COLLUSION AFTER I RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENTATION FROM MY FOIA REQUEST. As is obvious from the emails, I was not asked to any of the meetings that were to take place between my department and Chancellor Keon.
Let's just focus on the collusion.
The "Eisenstein problem" and the general hysteria about my free speech was solely genrated by the Department Head and some of the faculty. It certainly seems that they met with the Chancellor together, without me. In addition, it is certain that at least Professors Jackson and Tobin each had a private audience with him. (By the way, I also passed Professor Joyce leaving his office during this time and when I called the Chancellor out on this his reponse was he meets with faculty about all kinds of issues and it is none of my business.)
It is clear Chancellor Keon's business was me and he directed the faculty how to word and structure the harassment filings against me and when "he" needed them turned in. He also makes it clear to them that he will be making the decision (wink, wink). I have to admit that it is possible that the various members of the faculty are inventing stories in their emails to each other that they never knew would go public. It is possible. What is more likely is that what they say is true and it was Chancellor Keon who advised them how to attack my First Amenment rights.
Who are the players in the emails:
Nicky Jackson -- Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
Kathy Tobin -- Associate Professor of History
Saul Lerner -- Professor of History
Miriam Joyce -- Professor of History
Richard Rupp -- Head of the Department and Associate Professor of Political Science
Chad Steacy -- I have no idea who he is.
Purdue Social Justice Club -- An anti-American, Marxist group that considers American soldiers "angels of death." Adviser is and has been Prof. Alan Spector.
Alan Spector -- Professor of Sociology, outed left wing Marxist (even Marxists reject his violent and anti-American views) and member of the anti-American People's Worker Party. Paid over $85,000.
Colin Fewer -- Associate Professor of English
The Chancellor told them to file "work place" harassment complaints (to get around free speech). In trying to meet the Chancellors guidelines to show a pattern of behavior, one faculty member alleged a dispute over a name plate in 1991!
This is outrageous. More outrageous is that the University investigated it!
Stay tuned -- there are more communications coming from other FOIA requests. And, there are substantive issues that I will also address, such as the problem with the alleged "tapes" of my alleged "lectures".
Technorati Tags: academic freedom, Chancellor, collusion, Eisenstein, emails, faculty, First Amendment, free speech, harassment, Keon, Nicky Jackson, Purdue university, Richard Rupp, Saul Lerner, Tobin
| | | | | | |