BANNING FREE SPEECH AND FREE INQUIRY AT AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

I have had many computer problems in November and December, causing me to spend considerable time before the screen but accomplishing less.  One story close to home deserves a comment.  I reside a block from Marquette University in Milwaukee.  I am not affiliated with Marquette, I just live in the neighborhood.
A teaching assistant at Marquette, teaching ethics, cut off discussion of a topic, contending that if it were debated, it might offend some students.  A professor in the Political Science Dept. heard of the incident, heard what the squelched student recorded on tape, and the professor then commented about the incident on his blog.  As a result, at the moment, the professor, John McAdams is barred from the Marquette U. campus.  I am now able to include a comment I wrote for Breitbart.com about the banning of McAdams.  Hugh Murray

humura • 10 days ago

McAdams has taught at Marquette for 37 years. The name of his blog is a snipe at the politically correct Marquette U. administrators who some years ago changed the mascot from The Warriors to the Golden Eagles, because of fear of offending some Amerindians. McAdams also runs a major site on the assassination of Pres. JFK. McAdams is an authority, a tenured professor, and one with courage to speak out when he learnt that a student was bullied by a TA who teaches ethics and decrees that even to debate gay marriage is homophobic. From her action in this matter, I would conclude that she is a dreadful teacher, unwilling to discuss basic issues of ethics. She should be criticized for her authoritarian approach.
I do not agree with Prof. McAdams on the JFK assassination, and probably disagree with him on gay marriage. But he is RIGHT to defend the role of a university in permitting differing views to be discussed in classes, especially an ethics class. The TA is the bully, and the tyrant in this matter. And the university administration is worse. It is seeking to destroy free inquiry in the classrooms and promote politically correct conformity. And its banning of McAdams from campus and teaching is scandalous.
Banning McAdams is a loss to McAdams, a loss to Marquette, and a loss to freedom of inquiry throughout American academies.

MAJ. HASAN IS SANE; LIBERALISM IS NOT

For those abroad, Major Hasan was in the military, and four years ago took his weapon onto the military base and shot and killed 13 or 14 people.  The Obama Administration did not want to call it a terror attack, so it was classified as workplace violence.  Last week, his court appointed attorneys sought to take control of the case from Hasan, for they thought him insane, because he would not follow their advice and instead was trying to get the court to condemn him to death.  The government attorneys are as politically correct as much of America society.  That means, they are incorrect.  They are so blind they cannot understand that Hasan wants to take a political stand at his trial.  He is willing to risk his life to present his case - the case for Muslim jihad, for killing the enemies of Islam.  Malkin exposes some of the insanity about the case: fellow officers were aware Hasan was a Muslim jihadist, but did nothing about it for the Dept. of Justice would have charged them with racism and bigotry - the worst crimes in Obama's new America.  Also, our military bases are disarmed!  Only civilian police had weapons and could halt the murderous rage of Hasan.  In America, many will conclude that Hasan is insane because he shot and killed fellow service men and women.  In America, many are willfully blind and refuse to comprehend that Hasan, like the suicide bombers, is willing to lose his life for the cause, in his case, the cause of Islam.  Hasan is not alone, nor is he the only Muslim jihadist in the US Army.  What IS insane are American policies that made fellow officers afraid to condemn Hasan when he spoke, and disarmed fellow officer so they were unable to defend themselves when Hasan began shooting and killing.  Liberalism is the lunacy.  Hasan should have been executed years ago, but like most murderers in the US, his case drags on and on.  
     Hasan was an army psychiatrist.  Can you imagine how he "helped" soldiers suffering from problems of killing the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
     Major Hasan was a soldier.  He proclaimed he was a soldier of Islam.  He thought it; he said it; he acted upon in.  He killed fellow American soldiers in his war for Islam - a war against the West.  Hasan is not insane.  He is an enemy of the West and Western values.  If the Hasans win, we will be subjected to sharia law.  If the Hasans win, Western Civilization will be destroyed.  He is the enemy.  He acted upon his evil jihadist beliefs.  He should have been executed years ago.
--------HUGH MURRAY

Three Forgotten Facts About the Fort Hood Massacre

By Michelle Malkin on August 6, 2013 at 7:21pm

Finally. Four years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and perpetrated the bloodiest massacre ever on an American military base, the self-confessed jihadist's court martial proceedings began this week. Have you forgotten?

Americans obsessed over the O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias trials. Gun-control lobbyists turned Newtown, Aurora andTucson into national awareness-raising, fundraising and legislation-promoting campaigns. But where are the celebrity lobbyists and high-profile advocates for the victims of bloodthirsty Muslim vigilante Nidal Hasan?

The White House, which downplayed the terrorist mass murder as"workplace violence," exacerbated national apathy for his evil acts. Our soldiers deserve better. Here are three facts you've probably forgotten—or never knew—about the Fort Hood terror spree.

• --Fourteen victims fell on Nov. 5, 2009, not 13. Thirteen of our U.S. military personnel died in cold blood at the deployment center. But the death toll was actually 14. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was pregnant when Hasan shot her during the first round of gunfire. At a military Article 32 hearing in 2010 (analogous to a civilian grand jury hearing), a survivor of the Fort Hood shootings testified that Velez cried out, "My baby! My baby!"
  In his opening statement on Tuesday, Hasan (acting as his own lawyer) apologized to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life.
• --The victims were all unarmed. Soldiers inside the deployment center were and are forbidden from carrying weapons—either issued weapons or personal arms—on base. When Hasan commenced his shooting spree by shouting, "Allahu Akbar," several brave men and women in uniform used chairs, tables and their own bodies to try to stop him. But it wasn't until a courageous, armed civilian police officer,Sgt. Kimberley Munley, arrived on the scene with her 9mm Beretta that Hasan's rampage was interrupted.
  In a gunfight outside the deployment center, Munley wounded Hasan—who was able to return fire and shot her in the hand, thigh and knee. While she lay on the ground, Hasan kicked away her weapon. Another armed civilian police officer, Mark Todd, was able to fire at Hasan five times and brought him down.
  Gun-control zealots led by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence exploited Fort Hood to argue for even tighter gun restrictions. But it was a 1993 Clinton administration gun-control directive banning most military personnel from carrying their arms for personal protection that facilitated Hasan's massacre except under very limited circumstances. Despite the death of 13 soldiers and the wounding of more than 30 at Fort Hood by a jihadist who warned his superiors that Muslim soldiers posed a specific threat, gun-free military base policies remain in place.
• --Hasan's military colleagues were more concerned with being accused of discrimination than with ridding our military of this known, deranged Islamic radical. In 2007, two years before he carried out his homicidal plan, Hasan laid out his murderous means, motives and Koranic inspiration for all to see.

His PowerPoint slide presentation to fellow Army doctors was titled: "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." Hasan warned: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." And: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!" As first reported by Pamela Geller, Hasan carried an official calling card with the designation "SoA (SWT)"—for "Soldier of Allah" and "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala" (Islamic for "Glory to Him, the Exalted").

Hasan told his superiors he was not alone among Muslim soldiers who believed they "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

He reminded the Army of the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case drags on in appeal) and the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun.

A Joint Terrorism Task Force had been monitoring Hasan's communications with jihad spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki all along. But the military was not notified. Even without that information, military officers expressed concerns privately that Hasan might leak classified information to terror groups if he were deployed and that he was capable of committing a fragging.

Yet, they were prepared to deploy him anyway and did nothing to remove him from his job. One email from an Army investigator before the Fort Hood massacre fretted: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Instead, 13 soldiers and one unborn child were slaughtered and paid with their lives for our country's reckless political correctness and bureaucratic fecklessness.

Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies

LONDON OLYMPICS OPENING: FILTH, NIGHTMARES, SICKNESS, STENCH

              (from letters to blog)
To Chris,

     I most liked the Bj and the Shanghai Special Olympics for massive, coordinated music and activities.  Both were spectacular.  The Barcelona one is more difficult to recall, but I think it occurred during the day; it was brighter, tho I do not remember much.  The London one, OK the importance of children's literature, the Mary Poppins, etc.  OK.  True, the industrial revolution may have begun in Britain, but do you need to include the stench of the industry?  I assumed the smokestacks would transform into cannon for WWI.  I just felt it missed something.  And the music, BORING.  The only exception was the finale, with McCartney singing "Hey Jude" and getting the athletes involved.  It was a simple song, one where many knew the lyrics, and many could sway and sing.

      On the bright side, there were no terror attacks.  And it did not rain.  The lighted boat with Beckham reminded me of boats on the river in Shanghai. 
      And some of the dance routines!  Ok some people are fat, ugly, and crippled.  Yet, in a setting that glorifies the body - strength, endurance, training - why not have pretty dancers?  Some of the gals dancing made me look skinny.  "Stronger, faster, higher" was once a motto of the games.  These are never enough to live by - some disabled people are terrific, some fat folks are wonderful, some ugly people are great - but in the festival that glorifies the body, why not have dancers who are more attractive?  And then why spotlight the ugliness of the industrial revolution?  Show how it improved life.  Made things easier.  Reduced the mortality rate, the number of deaths in childbirth.  Instead the London opening highlighted Nightmares.  Ugliness.  Sickness (and the National Health Service)?!  And political correctness ruined even the historical aspects of the program.  In the 19^th century the vast majority of those in the UK were white people.  How many high-hatted Blacks or Asians resided in Britain in the 19^th century.  But to be politically correct, the camera had to show a “pretend” history of Asians and Africans in a multicultural UK in the 1850s.  It is all pc bs.  And why not show how British imperialism actually helped develop some other nations round the world?  That the Olympics are an example of “Western Imperialism,” western values that spread through the world.  But, that would be politically incorrect.  So instead, the program emphasized filth, stench, and sickness.  How Britain has fallen.
     The motto of the Olympics used to be "faster, higher, stronger."  But this is in conflict with the egalitarians who produced the London Opening Ceremony.  They despise the word "best."  So their ceremony did celebrate "slower, lower, weaker."  Once again - how Britain has fallen! 

     Instead, why not mention the British schools where football began?  Where rugby started?  Cricket?  Indeed, even the notion of fair play?  And even attempts at reviving the ancient Olympic Games?  Britain was once Great.  Perhaps if it can shed its politically correct, egalitarian ideologues, it might become Great Britain again.

  ---------Hugh Murray

To all from Chris,

   What do you think of yesterday's opening ceremony at London Games?

    I think it's only OK. I like the fist several parts, which showed to us the British history in modern time---how the traditional way of life was challenged by the Industrial Revolution, how this revolution finally changed not only Britain but the whole world as well. I like the part when protesters holding bands and slogans for the rights of workers, feminism movement, etc. They showed us a picture of history that's created/pushed forward by all the people, not just those engineers and early capitalists but people living at the grassroots level, they stood up for their rights and with their struggle, the world is a better place. And also, the National Anthem of G.B, " God Bless the Queen", they sang high of the Queen but also sent her a message that she should not break the rule of law--" May She Defend the Rule of Law", as part of the lyrics. I also was amazed at how they recreated the Olympic Cauldron, when most other countries were struggling for a better idea on how to light the fire, they redesigned the fire and this i think is a major breakthrough. The Cauldron is a flower made of all the participants to the Games, a flower of world that each country is part of....These above is what I truly like.

But, I think they were stupid in showcasing British movies, famous songs, hip-hop dances, raps, social networks and the man who brought us" world wide web", These had nothing to do whatsoever with Olympics and its spirit. They chose the wrong things to boost. The US has Hollywood, the center of movie-making, the US is the birthplace of those music/dancing styles, Americans first invented computer and Internet; Social Networking tools like Facebook and Tweeter were also brought to this planet by Americans---but the Britons are showcasing these as if they were the inventors.  To make matters worse, it's boring so talk about songs/movies/dances at an Olympic opening ceremony, and they spent a huge part of the time on something they were not that closed related to, and they did it badly.

The Queen made a big "entrance" with the short vide-clip, but the final part of it, the Queen jumped off the helicopter to the Stadium, that's just ridiculous. It does not go well with the beginning part of that video where the serious-looking Queen living in quite a serious/solemn/majestic palace...how can such a woman(86 yrs old) suddenly jump down on the Stadium from the helicopter? Is this the British style of being humorous? So humorous that even the Queen is part of the "joke"?

In general, it's in no way even comparable to the Beijing Olympics. In our opening ceremony, we showcased our traditional culture. Important representatives are the brushes (we use in calligraphy and painting), paper-making procedures (we invented paper), Chinese Tai-ji, Confucius' Analects, the spectacular drum-beating served as the last 10 seconds countdown of the Games, and also a HUGE welcome to all the visitors; Chinese characters demonstrating the spelling of the word "peace" of different period in our history, and "peace" is exactly what the Olympic Game is all about; the magnificent fireworks play;  the theme song " You and Me",( do the Britons even have a theme song for the Olympics?)  the slogan " One world, One dream".(theirs is "our moment to shine" ???)  ... We demonstrated so many aspects of not just our culture, our country but also the Olympic dream/spirit, too many to name but a few.

The Britons showed the children's dream, the nightmare with fairy tales, they boosted their national health system...They told us their children are taken good care of, and after all the nightmare chaos, they went into dreams again (they may be designed the match the poem read at the beginning). By showcasing those dances, songs, etc, they may want to tell us that the young people in Britain are passionate....But these are just small topics. Don't you agree? Young people are passionate and energetic elsewhere, too.

Let me know what you think of the ceremony.

Chris