Comical Politics

Zinn, Daniels, and the Professor Detmer

In a recent column by Jerry Davich in the Gary Post-Tribune, he called Purdue University Calumet professor David Detmer some kind of knight for taking on Mitch Daniels and Purdue University over Howard Zinn the author of the "People's History of the United States."  Davich as usual is wrong on all fronts.  (Remember he is Croatian.  He hates Jews and other minorities.  It is part of his upbringing.  Look at his recent column.  Zimmerman is one of his families last names.  Although he says he is related to Robert Zimmerman, Bob Dylan, he never explains how a Jewish name, or person, came into his family.  Could he be ashamed?  Or as is true of all Croats, he denies it could ever be.  Remember that Croatians, beside killing Serbs, loved to kill Jews.  That was their goal in life.) 

Daniels as Indiana governor took on Zinn, and good for him.  That is Daniels.  See what occurred in the following: In July 2013, the Associated Press revealed that former Republican Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels asked for assurance from his education advisors that Zinn's works were not taught in K–12 public schools in the state.[95] The AP had gained access to Daniels' emails under a Freedom of Information Act request. Daniels also wanted a "cleanup" of K–12 professional development courses to eliminate "propaganda and highlight (if there is any) the more useful offerings."[96] In one of the emails, Daniels expressed contempt for Zinn upon his death:[97] This terrible anti-American academic has finally passed away...The obits and commentaries mentioned his book, A People’s History of the United States, is the ‘textbook of choice in high schools and colleges around the country.’ It is a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page. Can someone assure me that it is not in use anywhere in Indiana? If it is, how do we get rid of it before more young people are force-fed a totally false version of our history? At the time the emails were released, Daniels was serving as the president of Purdue University. In response, 90 Purdue professors issued an open letter expressing their concern.[98][99][100][101] Because of Daniels' attempt to suppress Zinn's book, the former governor was accused of censorship, to which Daniels responded by saying that his views were misrepresented, and that if Zinn were alive and a member of the Purdue faculty, he would defend his free speech rights and right to publish.[102]   Remember that Daniels was always right about Zinn.  Zinn dominated American History as it was taught in K-12 and in college.  Zinn was the most used book in education as a history book of the United States.  The problem is that Zinn was all wrong and so is the Professor Detmer from Purdue Calumet who defended him.  Zinn always criticized America by Zinn using today's standards of behavior and morality.  So does Detmer practice the same thing.  They are all both completely wrong and their fellow historians show that this is the case.  see the following historians on Zinn.  Remember he was even critical of his role in World War II when he was a lowly bomber.  He second guessed everyone in his role.  He did not like it end of story.  I wonder if he second guessed Churchill or Hitler etc.  Churchill would not be the leader against Hitler if he did not believe, falsely, that the British Empire was coming back and Hitler would not have lost the war if he did not have a human weakness to believe in astrology.  But that is the criticism of Zinn.  He is a fake historian but Professor Detmer defends him because he is also a fake. He is a fake in all, and I mean all, that he writes.  He is still writing about existentialism that dies after 1970.  But he can make a name for himself because he is the only one writing about it.

But Zinn would not become a multimillionaire if he stuck the the known truth about America.  He found out at the end of WWII that he could be very popular if he questioned the premise of people's decisions after the fact, especially when it came to Germany and Japan during WWII.  So to sell he had to make American look bad and the Europeans look bad.  And he did, which is all he did.  And Zinn became very wealthy.   At the same time he always said he was anti-American.  He said he was communist, an anarchist, or a democratic socialist what ever that meant to him.P

Zinn's book was used to teach almost all the high schools in Indiana, among most other states. and it was uses to teach future historians by Purdue University Education School how American History is to be taught.  The all uses Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States."  No other book.  And it was used by historians in college such as Professor Lerner.  He thinks of himself as an historian by he is just a liberal pontificate, actually way to the left of liberal as it Detmer.  Like his compatriot in crime Senator Sanders, Zinn is a Marxist multi-millionaire.  Go figure. 

This is what Daniels tries to oppose.  Both as governor of the State of Indiana and as President of Purdue University.  He wanted diversity it historical thought about the United States.  But it was not to be because of people like Detmer.  Who once in their lives proves that they hate America, and all that it stands for.  He prefers the European perspective and especially the high thinking French.  His specialty is existentialism and that is what he wrote his books on.  Jean Paul Sartre a Frenchman who was, depending what was happening at that time, was either an existentialism or a Marxist.  Depending on the day and he never ever condemned the killing of innocent civilians by Communists.  He liked it.  As a matter of fact he was the last and only French intellectual to defend it -- except for Detmer.  Neither is any longer taught or taken seriously.  Why should you?

His mistake, and all who have followed him, is to assume that history is all about 2019.  Zinn also presumes that he is the arbitrate of all human actions and he is the only human of any value in making decisions.  This is the overall mistake that they all make.  Can I think that Christopher Columbus, that is all Latinos, have hated and always hate Jews?  Yes it is true.  As history as always shown.  But I do not act on it.  I know that the Latinos were following the accepted belief about Jews in most of human history.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It cost the Latinos plenty.  Since they got rid of Jews, during the 15th Century, they have been useless to humanity.  Is it because of their lack of Jews? or God's punishment? or something else? I do not know.  But I do not publish a stupid and idiotic book called: "The People's History of Latino People."  It would all be a lie.  As Zinn is but an effective one.  

What the dumb columnist did not deal is with any critical views of the professor and Zinn.  Remember they all evaluated Americans of over 500 years ago by today's standards of action, belief, and morality.  It is easy to do that.  In addition, not Detmer or Zinn viewed any of the people making decisions and actions as being human.  Only the professors are.  Why is Detmer teaching on Sartre at a second rate school?  It was decisions he made or were made for him.  Zinn is the same and so it Columbus.  The Indians hated the Indians.  Can you blame them?  They were slaves and human sacrifices for other tribes.  It is still going today.  Ritual Contemporary Child Sacrifices  Where is Detmer and Zinn?  I hope they are all dead.  It would explain their silence all these years.

Zinn is so Jewish.  He leaves no, and I mean no, legacy to anything Jewish.  It just happened.  He is the big laugh of American academics.  Remember only the Jewish bible talks and is in fact against any human and especially child sacrifices to gods and anything else.  But Detmer and Zinn do NOT know anything about the Jewish faith.  Nothing.

 

Midterm Election is the End of the United States

I am not about to tell you how tomorrow's election will turn out.  The polls and talking heads are enough for that.  Nor will I tell you that the end of America's economic growth will happen, no borders, abortion at will, etc.  Although all are a possibility and many more when the Democrats take over the House.  President Trump was a short, if not complete, slow down of the end.  But he neither will end nor begin a continuation of the American values.  It has been many, many years in denial.  (Included in that was a younger self.)  He cannot do it by himself.  The best option is for Americans to have another civil war, with real weapons, since for once the country seems to be divided 50/50.  Personally I thing a good civil was is what the United States needs. 

In some ways it does not matter who wins the midterm election   The very fact that it is a contentious election is enough to show the end of American values.  It will be slower if Republicans win and it will be faster if Democrats win.  There is no other possibility.  If you think there is another you are fooling yourself and others.

It is like Jews fooling themselves that somehow Democrats will not come after them to kill them.  They always have historically.  Why is 2018 somehow different?  But Jews will keep fooling themselves just like they have done for over 2,000 years.

What is the end of American values?  What it basically means, and has meant for almost 250 years is what is embodied in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.  Nothing else matters.  Everything we talk about is a derivative of the First Amendment and that is all there is to it.  The First Amendment is the actual display of what American beliefs are.  They are freedoms granted to the individual, I repeat individual, irrespective of who may or may not be in charge.  There is no amending or changing the First Amendment.  It is absolute.  That is the way it was treated by the Supreme Court always.  Even though they were not perfect is in its implementation.  Everything else we discuss or implement as policy is a derivative of these freedoms.  Be that immigration, education, welfare, income inequality, etc.  They all go back to the First Amendment.

Why?  Because the First Amendment is not just a list of "like to have" freedoms.  It is what defines a human being.  It is the very meaning of what it is to be human.  That is to be in control of yourself and your future, for good or bad.  Anything less is not a human being one is an animal of some kind.  If you do not have the First Amendment as your values you are not a human being but an animal.  That has always been the difference between human beings and the animal and rock kingdoms.

The other amendments of what is called the "Bill of Rights" support the First Amendment.  They are actually re-iteration of how a free individual should be treated by a "government" to continue being a human being.  How a human being can keep on being a human being with G-d given rights (the Second Amendment is each individuals protection) in spite of what the government becomes.

The values that are personified in the First Amendment, as a definition of what it means to be human, are English.  They are part and parcel of the English culture.  These values are what it has always meant to be Anglo Saxon (property rights and the Magna Carta.  It is no longer accepted because these people are being defined, the Anglo people, as inherently evil.  Who was not?  As a matter of fact, no one was.  The English were a little better because of their conception of what it was to be human.

Who will win tomorrow be definition it will not be the First Amendment.  Only, and I mean only, the United States has anything close to the First Amendment as a definition of its values and what it means to be human.  It most direct precursor is the English culture.  But, that has been gone for over 100 years and America is finished because other cultures have become the majority they do not believe, or even understand, what the English culture had as its values.  Mexico is the biggest culture in the United States.  The land mass called the United States will become like Mexico for good or bad.  But, it will NOT be the United States with its English value of the First Amendment.  Do not be mistaken.  I am not Anglo-Saxon; but I do know what they gave to the world.  All societies took away -- always taking.  Only a few gave anything to advance human beings as human beings.   The European Union, the most advanced society after the United States, has done away with the First Amendment.  That should actually not be surprising.  It was never part of Europe's history.  

Progressives by definition for the past 100 years or more has slowly done away with the First Amendment.  Its goal has always seemed positive: to better the individual.  But, it never bettered the First Amendment: my home (what ever it may be) is my castle and no one can or should deny that.

 

 

The Problem With the Supreme Court is That This is Probably True

The Press Is Wrong on Masterpiece Cakeshop. The Baker Lost..

Bakery owner Jack Phillips got the decision he wanted, but the next time he turns away a same-sex couple, he will lose his case.

How England Had Died.

Remember all  great ideas, like free speech and free press, die when they meet Islam.  It is now happening to America's mother country, or it is already dead, and will happen to America soon.

Unlike the judge who delivered his 13-month sentence, I watched Tommy Robinson's entire Facebook Live stream on the Muslim grooming gangs trial outside Leeds Crown Court.  It is a little over an hour long and very enlightening....

The U.K. versus free speech.

The cowardice of American Jewish academia

The cowardice of American Jewish academia.

Three weeks ago, Professor Alan Dershowitz gave a speech at the University of California-Berkeley in which he laid out......

Jewish faculty on US campuses paying a heavy price for standing up for Israel - Diaspora - Jerusalem Post

Jewish faculty on US campuses paying a heavy price for standing up for Israel Profs on the frontlinesDemocrats, Republicans rebuke White House for stance on Israel boycotts40 Columbia University professors sign BDS petition

'The Jerusalem Report' looks at the academicians being bruised and battered by BDS on campuses across America. Zeina Ashrawi, of the Students for Justice in Palestine Society of George Mason University, participates in an anti-Israel rally in Washington, DC. (photo credit:JIM WATSON / AFP)

“SOMEONE MUST have been telling lies about Josef K., because he had done nothing wrong, but one day he was arrested.”So begins Franz Kafka’s novel, “The Trial,” which sums up the dread felt by Doron Ben-Atar, an American history professor at New York’s Fordham University in the spring of 2014 when he was accused of some vague misdeed that had to do with his strong stand against the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

It began with an emotional faculty meeting to discuss the American Studies Association’s resolution to boycott Israeli universities, the first academic group to vote for a ban. Some US universities severed ties with ASA, and Ben-Atar urged Fordham to do the same. The Israeli-born professor further stated that he would resign from the Fordham branch of the association if it did not break with ASA and would fight it until it did. For that statement, Ben-Atar was charged with a spurious Title IX violation (a US federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex) and had to defend his reputation in a Kafkaesque process in which he was never shown anything in writing nor told what he had done wrong. He says that, according to the university official in charge of the investigation, the fact that he had retained a lawyer was proof of his guilt.Eventually, he learned that the charge against him was religious discrimination – ironic, given that he was protesting anti- Semitism. The charge was later dismissed. “I will pay, for the rest of my life, the price for standing up for Israel. I am a tenured professor, but I will never become a candidate for an endowed chair, the next step in my career, now that I’m outed as a troublemaker,” he tells The Jerusalem Report in a telephone interview.  “Please understand that I paid no significant personal price. I am an Israeli, two meters tall, I’m not afraid to say what I think. But the reality is that those who are not as fortunate as I am need to be very careful because their careers could be destroyed.

I have junior faculty colleagues who are afraid to be identified with anyone associated with Israel.”Andrew Pessin, a Connecticut College philosophy professor, read about Ben- Atar’s ordeal, sympathized, but moved on with the daily grind of teaching philosophy to undergraduates and being a father of three small children. It wasn’t until he, himself, was targeted on his campus by pro-Palestinian students that he reached out to Ben-Atar.Convinced they are part of a wider phenomenon,

Pessin and Ben-Atar are collaborating on a book of essays contributed by academicians bruised and battered by BDS.Prof. Denise Nussbaum, chair of the sociology department at Mt. San Jacinto College in California, refuses to set foot on campus, and teaches online from home since being ostracized and labeled an Islamophobe. Nussbaum had complained to the college’s Amnesty International club about their choice of speaker, a known Israel-hater, Miko Peled, an Israeli Jew. The complicated Middle East conflict should be presented in a balanced and scholarly manner, she argued, and signed her e-mail “Proud Zionist and Jew.” The club’s Iranian-born faculty adviser, associate math professor Shahla Razavi launched a campaign against Nussbaum accusing her of stifling free speech.“I received hateful text messages, phone calls and comments when I walked across the campus every day,” she tells The Report. At a large faculty meeting several months later, an associate professor of history, Gary Vargas, assaulted Nussbaum grabbing her by the arm; no one came to her assistance, she says. Nussbaum is suing the college’s Governing Board for $9.5 million for a long line of charges, including assault and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.  ”To add insult to injury, says Nussbaum, the college had hired an attorney to defend Vargas. “I had to stop going to campus, because I had such anxiety I would pull over at the side of the road,” says Nussbaum.

Prof. Corinne E. Blackmer of Southern Connecticut State University had a large map of Israel on her office door. In March 2008, someone ripped it to shreds and threw it on the floor. Shortly afterwards someone left a swastika on her car. The college police decided it was a hate crime because she is gay rather than because she is Jewish. The English and Judaic Studies professor now teaches a class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The more Israel is hated, the more I love her,” she tells The Report. “Since that time, I became more active in defending Israel.”Two Jewish professors at Wheelock College in Massachusetts have recently filed federal workplace discrimination complaints against the school alleging they were subjected to anti-Semitic discrimination that damaged their reputation and careers.

Professors Eric Silverman and Gail Dines allege that they were harassed after speaking out about a lack of Jewish perspective on campus, according to copies of the complaints filed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Many of these cases never reach the mainstream media.“I didn’t have a strong sense of how pervasive this is,” Pessin tells The Report. “These are very personal wounds when you are attacked on your own campus. It rattles you. A lot of people tell us how uncomfortable they feel to continue at their campus. I have not set foot on my campus since this happened to me. ”

IF BEN-Atar felt like a protagonist in a Kafka novel, Pessin feels more like Alfred Dreyfus, the French-Jewish officer falsely accused of treason. Pessin fell victim to a coordinated digital lynch by pro-Palestinian students that hinged on a deliberate misinterpretation of his words.“I was incredibly naïve,” he says. “I believed long after the evidence suggested otherwise that these were normal college students of good will and no ulterior agenda.”The story begins with a Facebook post Pessin penned denouncing Hamas in August 2014 during the IDF’s Operation Protective Edge and comparing Israel’s blockade on Hamas to someone keeping a “rabid pit bull chained in a cage.” The context of the post made it clear Pessin referred to the Hamas terrorism and not to Palestinians in general.Indeed, the post was one of a series of 17 he wrote during the war – the other 16 of which all explicitly named Hamas.Seven months later, in a coordinated attack, three editorials accusing Pessin of racism and promoting Palestinian genocide appeared in the Connecticut College student newspaper taking his comment out of context.They were written by a Muslim student active in Students for Justice in Palestine and three others majoring in the college’s Global Islamic Studies program. The student paper published the comments without giving Pessin an opportunity to respond.He had previously clarified via email to the Muslim student that his post referred to Hamas and not Palestinians in general. He apologized, deleted it and thought that was the end of the matter.“What happened to Andy is terrible,” says Ben-Atar.”  He is a well-respected scholar and they turned him into Public Enemy No. 1.

”Pessin became the center of a campaign of vilification with various academic departments and even the university president falling in lockstep, denouncing Pessin’s alleged “hateful” rhetoric. An online petition calling on administrators in this small, private liberal arts college to condemn Pessin’s “racism” was started by the student paper editor – the same one who had not given Pessin a chance to respond.The college president canceled classes for a day about a month later when racist graffiti against blacks was found on campus and called for a mandatory campus-wide forum on racism in which Pessin’s name was brought up and his few defenders were jeered. A Palestinian flag was draped on a banister near Pessin’s office and he received death threats.“The entire campus exploded,” says Pessin.“Not a single person contacted me to ask what the post was about, and apparently no one bothered to read the 16 other posts in the series, which made it clear what the post was about and which I left up on Facebook until the death threats started coming.  It was so devastating; I was minutes away from a nervous breakdown.“What pulled me back from the edge was when people outside campus started reaching out to me, hundreds of emails from Jews around the world.  A petition on my behalf was circulated with 10,000 signatures. I saw how important it is, not just psychologically, but also for the cause. When you’re being attacked, you can feel very alone. When you see there are thousands of virtual soldiers ready to support you, I started to feel strong to fight back and to reach out to any other individual to help them. It made me even more committed to Jewish and Israel advocacy.

”In the aftermath, the college gave Pessin a three-semester sabbatical, and he is scheduled to return to Connecticut College in the fall of 2017.“The damage can never be repaired,” he says. “Friendships and relationships are permanently destroyed. I don’t believe I can ever respect more than a handful of people on that campus.”The plan to silence Pessin has backfired, however.With time on his hands, Pessin, the author of several popular books on philosophy, is channeling his energies to battle BDS on several fronts, including a weekly newsletter, articles for a Jewish newspaper and helping other academicians.Another plan that backfired was the campaign to silence Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer at University of California, Santa Cruz. After being the subject of “a wellplanned, well-orchestrated and well-funded campaign of harassment to make an example of me,” in her words, Rossman-Benjamin stepped up her efforts to speak out on behalf of Jewish students through her work with AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit organization devoted to investigating, documenting and combating campus anti- Semitism, which she co-founded in 2012.In 2009, Rossman-Benjamin, who taught Hebrew and Jewish studies, filed a 32-page complaint with the US Department of Education’s office of Civil Rights alleging a hostile environment for Jewish students on her campus.“I gave so many examples of instances in the classroom where professors used academic freedom to promote their own anti-Israel agenda, an intellectual and emotional harassment of Jewish students,” says Rossman-Benjamin. It took two years, but in March 2011, a federal investigation of her complaint was launched only to later be dismissed due to intense lobbying by pro-Palestinian groups, she says.“Their argument was that, by virtue of us complaining of anti-Semitism, we are creating a hostile environment for Arab Muslim students. It’s Orwellian. The hypocrisy is breathtaking and they get away with it,” she relates to The Report.Rossman-Benjamin gained a reputation as someone willing to stand up for Jewish students and paid the price. “They wanted to make an example of me because they knew I’m high profile, not only as a faculty member, but also because I spoke nationally on the subject.If they could demonize me, they could use me as an object lesson. If you speak out against us, this is what we will do to you.”As in the Pessin case, her enemies conducted an archaeological dig to find something they could use against her. They came across a two-minute YouTube clip of a talk she had given at a Boston synagogue in the summer of 2012 in which she stated that some members of pro-Palestine student groups were foreign students who came from Arab countries where anti-Semitism is endemic.

Some of the groups, she said, have ties to international terror groups.“They made it seem that I had said this to students in my classroom and started a petition with the video clip calling on the president of the University of California to condemn me for racism and Islamophobia,” says Rossman-Benjamin.  “They got people from all over the world to sign but that wasn’t enough. They took pictures of Muslim students with a description ‘I am not a terrorist but Hebrew professor Benjamin says I am.’ They made fliers and put them all over campus. This is my campus. I walk through this campus every day. Then they put up more than a dozen YouTube testimonials.”The campaign then expanded to other California campuses.

“I had cause to be fearful for my personal safety,” says Rossman-Benjamin, who since the incident and after 17 years of teaching is now on leave for several years of her own volition.Several professors in litigation with their universities declined to be interviewed by The Report.The American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of them, stated: “The ACLJ is concerned about the recent upswing in actions against Jewish students and professors on our nation’s university campuses. We are in the process of assisting several faculty members dealing with discriminatory and harassing conduct – both by anti-Jewish/pro-BDS student organizations and by university administrators – based on nothing more than their Jewish ethnicity and/or their protected pro-Israel speech.”Much of the antisemitism against Jewish faculty is subtle and nuanced, and does not make headlines or reach the courtroom.

“It’s part of contemporary academic life,” Kenneth Waltzer, professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Michigan State University, tells The Report. “Junior faculty members have to stick their head in like a turtle and not be open about their politics because they are coming up for tenure.”Waltzer and Mark Yudof, former president of the University of California, recently founded the Academic Engagement Network, which enlists faculty members on campuses throughout the US as allies in the battle against BDS. More than 200 have enrolled so far, and Waltzer and Yudof hope to form a nucleus of pro-Israel faculty on each campus.It has been surprisingly easy to recruit faculty, even in the sciences, law and medicine, says Waltzer. “Especially the older tenured faculty has reached their fill with stuff. A number of people said they have been waiting for this and say, ‘I’m fed up, we have to do something.’” Although there is consensus about the significance of the problem, there is disagreement about whether BDS is a passing fad or here to stay.

Waltzer believes it will run its course and peter out. “I think there is a sell-by date sticker on it, but I’m not sure how close we are to that,” he says.Rossman-Benjamin, however, worries it will get worse. “Right now, it’s bad but it’s going to get far worse to the point where there will be real physical violence on campus. In my opinion, that day is not far away,” she says, worrying mostly about the students.

“The clear and present danger is not only for the safety of Jewish students, but also for their souls,” she says. “It is difficult to be Jewish and they have to turn off their identity in the critical years when students form their identities. And some go over to the other side. We are losing a whole generation of Jewish students to this conflict.”

via www.jpost.com

Indiana Governor Mike Pence (or Mitch Daniels) Ulikely to be the 2016 GOP Candidate

There have recently been a number of articles looking at Mike Pence as the dark-horse of GOP presidential politics.  There seems to be little discussion that this is unlikely.  An example of such a perception, of Pence as the "dark-horse" of GOP presidential politics,  is the following article:

5 reasons Mike Pence might be the 2016 dark horse to watch | The Daily Caller.

I know the aricle has a number of qualifiers.  They always do.  But why consider him at all?  There is even talk of former Governor Mitch Daniels being the GOP candidate.  Both Pence and Daniels are political and personal friends and supporters.  What is true of one slides right along with the other.  He, Daniels, is President of Purdue University, establishing his credentials and biding his time for 2016.  The idea for Daniels' run is his reputation as a cost cutter and, by 2016, his problems with his wife and marriage will be old history.  Daniels, so the argument goes reestablish his credentials with his "new" developments in higher education, which would help Republicans in that arena.

Governor Pence is doing the same; but, in the Governor's seat rather than higher education.  Both can in fact sit out the 2016 race and run in 2020, well employed and probably improving their positions.  Although, I would argue that by 2020 they would not be in any better position.  The problems they have today, as GOP candidates, will remain.

The question though is this all fantasy thinking on the part of the GOP or is there any real substance behind it.  Mike Pence in his role as Governor of Indiana and Mitch Daniels in his role as a Big-10 university president, both entered their new positions espousing conservative and traditional values.  One for the state level and the other for traditional and real higher education.  Governor Mike Pence came in with, what he himself claimed, an uncompromising position of having a voter mandate to provide the taxpayers a 10% rebate on the total funds collected by the State.  It did not happen.  The conservative principle here is that the State was in too much of people's lives and there was a need to reign in the State of Indiana Government, somewhat on the Texas model.  It did not happen.  Although Pence's party had complete control of the Indiana House and Senate, he could not or would not make it happen.  Partial principles are not principles.

Daniels did the same thing.  He came in with a memorandum to the Purdue family full of desire to really bring higher education and its lack of constitutional rights into the principled life of the American Constitution.  When he got some push back, he retreated or gave up.  He even argued, in a column, that the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, would give Purdue a green light on his new policies to constitutional protections.  He said the measure of his success, just as Pence said the 10% rebate would be, is FIRE upgrade of Purdue's policy in regards to the First Amendment.  So far, FIRE and the AAUP have only criticized his primary rejection of his own memo and his lack of defense of any rights.  Why would any conservative vote for these individuals in a primary?

That is the problem with both of them.  It is the usual talking a good game; but no substantive actions.  There has been plenty of that seen with the current president.  Pence and Daniels are showing that there is not a substantive difference in their actions.  It is probably true that they both can show that they are better administrators and managers in government than the current president.  That will not get an election won.

They also electorally do not bring anything to the table.  Indiana will go to the GOP candidate in the presidential race.  Neither Pence or Daniels can help with other states in improving the GOP electoral map.  The GOP needs to do itself a favor and to stop looking for the "dark horses."  The GOP needs to concentrate on its conservative principles and values to win -- which it can.  They need to ensure that everyone understands that it is the conservative position that make most people Americans and it is why immigrants come to America in the first place.

Related articles

Look to the governors in 2016

Pence earns high marks in GOP polls

How Totalitarian will Mitch Daniels Allow Purdue University to Get?

Which Mitch Daniels Will Show Up Monday as President of Purdue University?

• Indiana Governor Pence Defiles Democracy (dianeravitch.net)
• Governor Pence To Give GOP Address Saturday (indianapublicmedia.org)
• How Did Oman's Bayan College Become Purdue's Newest Regional Campus? (speakingtruthtopower.blogs.com)
• Daniels Seeks To Boost STEM Fields, Purdue's Online Classes (indianapublicmedia.org)

Hoosier Students Learn to Defend Their Rights Despite the Indiana Legilature

When you read the following article and see the video, as a Hoosier taxpayer you will quickly realize that this individual went through this learning experience as a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.  How embarrassing for Hoosier citizens and taxpayers is this national story?

VIDEO: How FIRE Helped Me Learn to Defend My Rights While I Was in College - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE.

What is worse is that the the Indiana State Legislature did not do anything about the betrayal of the American Constitution at the universities it funds with your and my money.  In Indiana, higher education policy and tax revenue is beholding to an entity called the Indiana Commission of Higher Education (ICHE).  During the past half century, it has done nothing to promote American values in Hoosier tax supported higher education institutions.  Not to speak of promoting the values of the the Hoosier citizens who are footing the bill. 

via speakingtruthtopower.blogs.com

The State of Indiana has become a joke in higher education where the Bill of Rights is considered. There is the IUPUI public disaster,Purdue and Indiana Universities' embarrassment of action, Ball State University and Purdue Calumet civil rights lawsuits. Hoosier taxpayers should be ashamed at what university administrators are doing with the people's money.

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system

It is interesting that the following story is never reported by the mainstream media.
Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system | The Cable.

It argues that the UN's election monitering team was overwhelmed at the level of trust that is at the center of America's electoral process.  How could this be the case when most progressives, i.e. Democrats, argue that the American electoral system is intentionally disenfranchising many possible voters?   The suspician is that most of the so called "disenfrancised" voters are really part of the 80 million registered voters who did not care enough to vote in the 2012 election. 

It is impossible to figure out a system to get them to vote.  Requireing them to vote, may work, but it rejects America's values of freedom of thought and action.   This should teach Americans that having to show a picture identification does not prevent anyone from voting.

Related articles

David L. Ober Wins State Representative in Indiana's 82nd District

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system

UN Poll-Watchers 'Amazed' US Doesn't Require ID's To Vote

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system

International Poll-Watchers 'Amazed' US Doesn't Require Photo-ID's To Vote

U.N. Poll Watchers Baffled U.S. Doesn't Require I.D. to Vote

What if Chick-fil-A was Owned by Muslims? The Culture Wars are Real.

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.

Related articles

Chick-Fil-A packed as supporters turn out

Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day: Half A Million To Show Up At Restaurants

Tweet of the Day: Chick-fil-A and Barack Obama

Boston Mayor: Chick-fil-A, Move Along

Americans flock to support Chick-fil-A