Putting on the Fresh Person Fifteen

Author’s note: The use of an asterisk indicates that the college or university has revised its speech code thanks to the work of my friends at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. (See www.TheFire.org). The best source of information about campus speech in general is: Greg Lukianoff. Unlearning Liberty. New York: Encounter Books, 2012. Click here to order a copy now.

All week long, people have been sending me emails expressing their outrage at UNC Chapel Hill’s decision to remove the word “freshman” from all university documents in order to be gender inclusive. But why are they surprised? And why are they writing to me to express their outrage? I’ve been telling readers for over a decade that they need to directly call and write the universities that are responsible for encouraging hypersensitivity through the use of campus speech codes.

If you do not know what a speech code is then you are probably new to my column. So here is a list of some examples that have actually been implemented at colleges and universities across America. If you write to complain, make sure your messages are written in stark violation of their campus speech codes. You are about to learn that it may not be very difficult.

*At Drexel University, prohibited harassment once included “inconsiderate jokes” and “inappropriately directed laughter.” Students at Drexel had to be careful. If someone made a joke that was funny, they had to look directly at them. Looking the other way and laughing could have constituted harassment.

*Florida Gulf Coast University actually banned expressions deemed “inappropriate.” Did you hear that one? I’ve always hated the expression “know what I’m saying.” Does that make it a violation of the speech code? Or is it racist for me to suggest that it is? Know what I’m saying?

*Ohio State University actually banned jokes about differences related to “socio-economic background and etc.” Hey, do you know the different between a Republican and a Democrat? A Republican drinks 12 year old wine; a Democrat drinks wine when he’s 12 years old. Don’t laugh! That could be a speech code violation! No need to rely on the catch all “etc” to violate it. Man, that’s rich! I mean person that’s poor.

*College of the Holy Cross implemented a speech code that banned even unintentionally causing emotional injury through careless or reckless behavior. Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. But a Holy Cross administrator doesn’t seem to know. They got rid of the word “unintentional” but left the word “careless.” So you can still be nailed to a cross for accidentally violating this (w)hol(l)y ridiculous dictate.

Grambling State University has an email policy that prohibits offensive comments about “hair color.” So if you make a dumb blonde joke, you might get charged with violating the school’s hair-assment policy. I guess that sort of thing needs to be highlighted and then rooted out of the educational system. Bald assertions probably need to go, too.

Marshall University bans incivility or disrespect of persons. Better not go around saying “we are Marshall.” That’s exclusive and, of course, exclusivity is disrespectful.

*California State University – Chico banned stereotypic generalizations including continued use of generic masculine terms. How about this for a stereotype: most college administrators are bed wetting liberals. Hehehehehe!

*The University of Florida once threatened disciplinary action against organizations or individuals that upset the “delicate balance of communal living.” I have no idea what that means so I can’t say much in response. I just know it was written by an imbalanced communist.

Mansfield University
bans any behavior that would diminish “self esteem” or “striving for competence.” Right now I want to say that Mansfield administrators are incompetent idiots. But that might hurt their self esteem while they are striving for competence. It’ll never happen. But let’s make them feel warm and fuzzy while they try to strive for mediocrity. Sexist idiots! I mean, why don’t they call themselves Persons-field University?

*The University of Wisconsin – Whitewater
banned “obnoxious jerk harassment” including “jokes, catcalls, whistles, remarks, etc.” I don’t get this. Does it mean I cannot harass an obnoxious jerk? What about Keith Olbermann? He’s man enough to take it. Come to think of it, so is Rachel Maddow.

Some freshmen put on weight because they become physically lazy. Almost every other student becomes intellectually lazy throughout his college years. The reason is simple: someone is always telling him it’s easier to be a victim than to respond to bad speech with speech that is better.

 

A night with the fanatics

On Tuesday evening, I covered a 9/11 vigil in Toronto, and a counter-protest across the street organized by Islamic and leftist groups calling for the return of Omar Khadr.

We didn’t know that as this was taking place, Muslim fascists in Libya and Egypt were murdering people who had in some way offended them. One of the dead was the U.S. ambassador to Libya, representing a nation that had given so much to free the Libyan people from tyranny.

The ostensible reason for the slaughter was outrage over a fringe movie depicting the prophet Mohammed in a negative light.

So what? We are supposed to be free to speak our minds. The issue here is not the movie but the Islamic reaction to the movie.

Remember, the same week this tiny film was made public, the internationally celebrated Venice Film Festival gave an award to a movie showing a naked woman masturbating with a crucifix.

The Christian response was an e-mail.

I doubt any of this would have moved the crazies protesting Tuesday. They described their demonstration as a hate-free zone, but told me and the other Sun News team to “f— off” as soon as we arrived. Not one of the many protesters could tell me the name of the medic who was killed by Omar Khadr, and some of them said it didn’t matter. They were also indifferent to the stories I told them of Christians, gays, women and moderate Muslims being slaughtered by militant Islamists.

What was noticeable was how many non-Muslim, white student types were there, including one with a megaphone with OCAP — Ontario Coalition Against Poverty — written on it, as an ownership marker. In that most of the crowd seemed to have the latest iPhones and iPads, I’m not sure where the poverty was.

As always, these extremist groups wheel out their token Jew or two, like the old South African apartheid regime always had a black traitor who would praise the system. One of the Jewish ladies at this event explained how all of Israel was occupied territory.

The crowd screamed “fascist” and “hoodlum” at the peaceful crowd of mainly Jewish, Hindu and Chinese people across the road, and then ostentatiously sat down when the Canadian national anthem was played.

Suddenly Omar’s sister Zaynab Khadr was spotted and internal e-mails revealed she would be kindly providing refreshments — no joke.

The lovely Zaynab once said of Americans killed on 9/11, “They deserve it.

“They’ve been doing it for such a long time, why shouldn’t they feel it once in a while?”

We asked her politely for a comment, and the zoo erupted.

We were pushed and threatened, and a group of people surrounded us screaming “racist, racist” and tried to prevent us from moving. One of them grabbed my arm and microphone, but his grip was as tenuous as his grasp of logic.

So, a night with the fanatics. Thank God they do not have the guns and bombs possessed by their friends in the Middle East.

But be aware, they live among us, and their hatred and anger knows few bounds.

When Students Cheat Liberals Retreat

The best argument against liberalism is that it doesn’t work. That should be obvious to any teacher who has to deal with student cheating. Even some sociology teachers are beginning to learn this although they are not aware that they are learning it. Like rats in a Skinner box, their behavior is being modified by reality even when they lack the intellectual capacity to recognize it. It warms my heart to see old liberals changing their ways, even if mindlessly. So I have written a column about it, which I am hoping will someday be reprinted by the New York Times.

Liberals are reticent to address the issue of student cheating because it reminds them of the fallen nature of man. Utopia requires cooperation and evidence that people tend to cheat undermines the view that they are inclined to cooperate. So liberals would prefer to ignore evidence of cheating in order to preserve a vision of what “society” ought to be and could be if only they were given the means (read: more of our money) to re-engineer it.

But evidence of student cheating has become too widespread to ignore. So the liberals in my department have started circulating articles on the subject coming from reputable sources like the New York Times (sarcasm = off). Some of these articles and some of the faculty reactions to them have focused on what they describe as “a culture of cheating.” Accordingly, some liberal faculty members have started talking about what needs to be done about it. Others have started acting on it. This should be causing cognitive dissonance for several reasons:

1. Merit is irrelevant. Sociology students are frequently fed the liberal line that people do not succeed in America on the basis of their own merits. The old “it isn’t what you know, it’s who you know” maxim is more than just a cultural adage. It seeps into the college curriculum in sociology classes that focus on Marxian conflict theories. Students are routinely taught that wealth, power, and privilege are the keys to success. This tends to denigrate the importance of knowledge. It should go without saying that people are less inclined to rely on their own achievements if their efforts are thus devalued. The connection of such notions to acceptance of cheating is fairly obvious. If we teach people that they cannot succeed through legitimate efforts we will soon see them pursue success through illegitimate means. As always, liberals fail to understand that ideas have consequences. And bad ideas can have very bad consequences.

2. Ethnocentrism is unacceptable. Sociologists like to teach others that it is wrong to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture. Such judgments are called “ethnocentric.” This concept has slowly crept into mainstream liberal thinking. That is unfortunate because promoting anti-ethnocentrism is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. it tends to undermine the idea that one’s actions (including cheating) can be considered objectively wrong. 2. It renders efforts to condemn a “culture of cheating” hypocritical. Remember that we aren’t supposed to judge other cultures!

3. Punishment is ineffective. Sociologists routinely teach the liberal idea that punishment is ineffective and the corresponding idea that “society” has an obligation to rehabilitate criminals. Then, in their own syllabi, they warn students that cheating will be punished. Claiming to be shocked when their threats are ignored, they send students through the campus penal system, not through rehabilitation. And the liberal campus penal system can be quite punitive and dismissive of due process. No attorneys, no tape recorders, no note taking, no soup … oops! I mean, no due process for you!

In a nutshell, sociology, like modern liberalism, teaches that we can’t get by on our own merits, we should not judge other cultures, and that punishment does not work. When students cheat, however, the sociologist urges advancement through one’s own merits, condemnation of the culture of cheating, and punishment of the transgressor.

It is little wonder that many students are intellectually lost and morally confused. They make the mistake of taking their sociology professors seriously, which means buying into contradictory liberal ideas. So my advice is two-fold: First, don’t cheat in college because it is objectively wrong to do so. Second, don’t cheat yourself by choosing a major populated by hypocrites who cannot abide by the consequences of their own ideas.

 

All My Exes Live in Texas

A former Texas high school teacher was convicted of multiple felonies after having sex with five 18-year-old students at her home. The conviction was a victory for the prosecution but it was a setback for the feminist movement. It was also a setback for the homosexual uncivil rights movement, which seeks unlimited authority to redefine relationships among consenting adults.

Brittni Nicole Colleps, 28, of Arlington, was found guilty of 16 counts of having an inappropriate relationship between a student and teacher. In Texas, this second-degree felony is punishable by two to 20 years in prison per count. Because none of her students sodomized her, the relationships have not yet been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

What makes this case difficult for some to fathom is that Colleps is Mrs. Colleps, not Miss Colleps. She is married and has multiple children. She also likes to have sex with multiple school kids at the same time. In fact, she had to turn herself in after one of the student athletes she was having sex with video recorded the encounter using a cellphone. That’s one of the disadvantages of taking on several athletes at once. It’s tough for a girl to know what all the boys in the room are doing at any given time. And it’s tough to keep track of all the electronic devices.

Police Detective Jason Houston testified at trial saying that charges were filed because, whether they are 18 or not, it’s a crime for a teacher to have sex with her students. This has some feminists upset because they think it should only be a crime for a teacher to have sex with his students. They think that a woman having sexing with high school students is empowering while a man having sex with high school students is oppressive. As usual, the feminists want to do away with laws that are gender neutral. In their view, it’s the only way to end gender discrimination. It isn’t logical but it doesn’t have to be. It’s feminism so it just has to sound angry.

Feminism has a long way to go to achieve equality but at least it has accomplished one thing: it has more women pursuing careers and acting like hyper-sexualized frat boys. Some women are able to do both at once. (Insert inappropriate multi-tasking joke here).

While Brittni Colleps was at home serving a substantial portion of the boys’ track and field team, her husband was serving in the military overseas. Christopher Colleps said that he is mad at his wife, but stands by her “because `til death do us part means `til death do us part.” In other words, Mr. Colleps takes marriage seriously.

Christopher Colleps testified in court that he and his wife had engaged in group sex before – also during the course of their marriage. He also testified that he was “hurt” by what his wife did with multiple high school student athletes. The moral distinction between the group sex in which he participated and the group sex in which he did not participate brings us right to the heart of the marriage debate in 21st Century America.

According to Christopher Colleps, and to homosexual rights activists, marriage is not an agreement between two people and God. It is an agreement between two or more people. The group sex Mrs. Colleps engaged in was not wrong because it violated the laws of God. It was wrong because it violated his rules. Mr. Colleps had to know of the act, approve of the act, and hopefully participate in the act for it to be okay. As long as all the adults offered full knowledge and consent, everything was okay. That is the new view of marriage. It is just whatever the humans want it to be.

The videotaped evidence at trial demonstrated that none of the participants was using a condom. The acts also occurred in a house where three young children were being raised. But remember that if Mr. Colleps had only known and approved – and gotten in on the action! -then everything would have been okay.

The defense attorney for Brittni Colleps said that Texas should not have convicted his client, adding that Texas is too conservative for its own good. He looks forward to the day that the Texas Supreme Court gets the government out of people’s bedrooms and allows consenting adults to do whatever they wish to do in their own homes.

That day has not yet come in Texas. That is good news for Texans who care about their children.

Ethnocentric Studies

Ethnocentrism is under-rated. Most college students are exposed to the concept only if they take a course in Introductory Sociology or if they should chose to major in sociology. Even then, the concept of ethnocentrism is presented as an evil to be extinguished by fostering the value of anti-ethnocentrism.

For those who are not well-versed in the language of sociology, ethnocentrism refers to the tendency to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture. Since this is a natural human tendency, the task of fostering anti-ethnocentrism is difficult, to say the least. But it is also self-defeating.

Technically speaking, sociologists form a sub-culture with their own set of values, beliefs, and practices. And they are the only sub-culture that is known to promote the value of anti-ethnocentrism. Therefore, when sociologists tell people of other cultures (non-sociologists) that it is bad to judge people of other cultures by the values of their own culture, they are doing just that: judging people of other cultures by the values of their own culture. In fact, the value they impose on others (anti-ethnocentrism) cannot be imposed without engaging in ethnocentrism. It is intellectual Onanism. It produces no fruit.

While anti-ethnocentrism fails the test of internal consistency, its greatest weakness is external. That is to say, it fails when applied to real-world problems – problems outside the realm of theory and abstract sociological jargon. Who can read about the Rape of Nanking or the Nazi Holocaust and remain convinced that we should somehow refrain from judging that which is self-evidently wrong?

Today’s college student is just as intellectually capable as yesterday’s college student. But he (and increasingly she) often suffers from moral atrophy. We need to combat this atrophy by exercising the natural moral reflex. It might not require a whole major in Ethnocentric Studies dedicated to teaching the upside of judging cultures like Nazi Germany. But we should at least consider a course called Introduction to Ethnocentrism. It should be a required course within the Department of Sociology so that no one actually graduates before fully appreciating the necessity of judging other cultures.

On March 7 of 1996, the day I became a former atheist, I had the unique experience of interviewing prisoners inside a filthy prison in Quito, Ecuador. I was appalled by the fact that the prison served rotten meat to prisoners after boiling it in large vats in order to make it edible. In fact, I was so appalled by what I saw that I wrote an expose for an academic human rights journal. In that article, I summarized numerous human rights abuses. Unfortunately, the editor of the journal was a sociologist who was more interested in defending the Ecuadorian culture than in defending the individuals being fed objectively rotten, sub-standard food.

Her name was Michelle Stone, then an Associate Professor of Sociology at Youngstown State University. She told me she liked the article and would publish it. Then she changed her mind and made its publication contingent: I had to remove the portion of the article criticizing the food given to the prisoners. Her exact words were “It isn’t nice to judge the foods of cultures other than your own.”

Eventually, Stone stepped down as editor of that journal. The next editor was forwarded an email from me showing that Stone had gone back on her word. Because he was a psychology professor, not a sociology professor, the new editor was able to recognize the absurdity of Stone’s anti-judgmental judgmentalism. So he over-ruled her and ran the article, which was later read by a congresswoman from Florida. After reading my article, the congresswoman flew down to Ecuador to negotiate the release of a woman who was stuck in an Ecuadorian prison and subjected to inhumane treatment.

It is sad when I reflect on that incident. An article that helped secure the release of an American woman held prisoner without due process almost did not see the light of day. And the sole reason for the delay in publication was that a sociologist had given the war on ethnocentrism greater priority than the war on human suffering. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence in the intellectually and morally confused discipline of sociology.

Someone needs to teach future sociologists that the failure to impose judgment results in the failure to remedy injustice. Ironically, the ones most qualified to enlighten them come from a culture other than their own.

 

The Salem Sandwich Trials

My name is Mike Adams. I’m honored to have been elected mayor of Salem, Massachusetts at this seminal point in history as we struggle to eradicate intolerance and prejudice towards gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgendered persons. Members of the GBLT community (hereafter: Giblets) are in need of our support. But they cannot go it alone. They need the support of the government as well.

I have been inspired by the recent efforts of the Mayor of Boston who has the courage to say that intolerance will not be tolerated in Massachusetts. He is a prescient man. He knows that people who hold disapproving views of sexual minorities will eventually begin to subject them to discrimination. He knows that those who serve chicken may someday decide not to serve Giblets. And he knows that because of what they might do, they must be banned in Boston immediately. In other words, it is often necessary to engage in prejudgments if one is going to prevent prejudice. And discrimination must be used as a means of preventing discrimination. The mayor’s steps are encouraging but they do not go far enough. So, today, I am proposing a new series of criminal procedures that will be invoked against restaurant owners who may hold negative attitudes toward the Giblet community. My specific proposals follow in their entirety:

1. After someone concludes that a restaurant owner may, in fact, be homophobic, the accuser will simply enter a complaint with the local magistrates. If the complaint is deemed credible, the magistrates will have the person arrested and brought in for a public examination. If the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded, the prisoner will be handed over to superior court. I will then petition the governor to re-establish a Court of Over and Terminer.

2. A person can potentially be indicted for afflicting someone with homophobia or for making an unlawful covenant with God in a church that does not allow everyone to make a similar covenant. Once indicted, the defendant will go to trial, preferably the same day.

3. If indicted, judges will apply peine forte et dure, in which stones will be piled on the accused’s chest until he can no longer breathe. If he is able to speak, the accused may plead not guilty and receive a jury trial. The jury will be comprised of a subset of those who brought forth the true bill resulting in the original indictment.

4. The evidence at trial will generally be comprised of the testimony of those afflicted by the practitioners of homophobia. In court, we will also rely heavily on the touch test, which was once used in Massachusetts. If the accused homophobe touches the Giblet while the Giblet is having a fit, and the fit then stops, that will mean the accused is the person who has afflicted the victim. It will demonstrate that they wielded power over them. But it will not be the only evidence deemed admissible in court.

5. Other evidence will potentially include: the confessions of the accused, the testimony of a person who confessed to being a homophobe identifying others as homophobes, and the existence of homophobe’s teats on the body of the accused. A homophobe’s teat is a mole or blemish somewhere on the body that is insensitive to touch. The discovery of such insensitive areas will be considered de facto evidence of homophobia, which is a form of insensitivity.

If convicted, appeal is allowed in which convicts will be subjected to an older and more established set of procedures known as Trial by Ordeal. (This is a slight modification we will call Appeal by Ordeal. It is justice with a poetic ring). The specific rules for appeal follow in their entirety:

1. The appellant may walk a nine feet, over glowing ploughshares, heated over an open fire. Innocence will be established by a complete lack of injury.

2. If the appellant is afraid of fire, he may instead remove a stone from a pot of boiling water, oil, or lead. Again, a lack of injury will establish innocence. People can reasonably disagree on a variety of issues such as the use of split infinitives. But no one should be expected to have his, her, or its food prepared by someone who disapproves of sodomy. Just as we must purge the food industry of people who prepare meals with unclean hands, we must also remove those who prepare meals with unclean thoughts.

Massachusetts has always been ahead of its time. It only makes sense that we should lead the long march through our economic and social institutions.

 

The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go

I would venture to guess that the folks filing in to see the latest Batman installment in Aurora, Colorado last Thursday evening didn’t figure on over 70 of them getting shot before the credits rolled. The last count I received before filing this column was 12 dead and 59 wounded.

As the news starting pouring in about what happened in the theater this week when Satan’s spawn James Holmes donned Kevlar and a small battery of weapons and opened fire on an unsuspecting crowd, I kept thinking, “One fast-thinking and trained person who was armed/licensed with a concealed weapon could have stopped that SOB right in his tracks before the body count skyrocketed.”

Yep, the armed citizen could have either killed him, sent him running for cover, or at least diverted his fire away from the masses and toward their person. Some readers, no doubt, are saying, “Well that would be stupid. What if that citizen got shot trying to protect others?” To that I reply: Well, Dinky, if they would have been shot and killed at least they would have died a hero. Have you ever heard of the term “hero”?

The Aurora Dark Knight Massacre is exactly why I carry at least one gun everywhere I go—because crap always happens when you least expect it. That’s why, as responsible citizens and gun owners, we must always be ready and must always expect it because when it happens, it happens fast; if you’re not ready, you and others are screwed.

For instance, it’s a beautiful and quiet day on Miami Beach this morning. I’m drinking my coffee at an outdoor cafe, minding my own business while I work on this column and on my website. I don’t see any bath salt zombies on the prowl. There are no Trench Coat Mafia wannabes lurking around. There is no real foreseeable reason to carry a weapon. But I am. The reason? Well, I’m not omniscient. I’m just a dumb clunk living in a jacked-up world where med school students go bat crap crazy and shoot up normally peaceful places for inexplicable reasons. Therefore, I’m locked, cocked and ready to rock should some demented dill weed decide to strafe the local patrons sipping a cup of Joe.

For those who say, “Doug’s insane with all this concealed weapons crap. We should leave such affairs to the police,” allow me to point out that the theater was crawling with cops for the Batman opening to control the crowds. By the time the police got to the particular theater, it was all over. Blood was already running down the aisles and the gunman had already left the building. You, my friend, are your first responder … your first line of defense.

Look, stuff happens when and where you don’t think it’ll happen. My recommendation to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun—a fire-breathing dragon of a weapon. Get proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it. However, should you be in line at the grocery store, or at Chili’s eating a burger, or at a park playing football with your homies, and some James Holmes wannabe shows up carting an arsenal and quoting Kafka as he shoots kids … you’ll be ready. Simply find cover if you can, draw your weapon, take a fine bead, and double tap the center mass of the murderous jackass. Should he or she have a bulletproof vest on then pull your sight picture up to the perp’s noggin and shoot him or her in the head; it’ll explode like a watermelon. You’ll feel bad for a nanosecond. But then the cops and families will show up and thank you for putting Jack the Ripper down. The end.

Watch my latest video, “Five Ways Romney Can Woo Young Weed Smokers.”

Amnesty International: the PETA of liberal-left “rights” idiocy

What a bad joke nearly all of these increasingly left-wing-tinged “rights” organizations have become. I blame Barack Obama for serving the Kool Aid which so many now consume.

Like the idiocy that PETA has sadly become, Amnesty International is still a tax-receipt-issuing charity supported by apparently foolish individuals who have apparently lost any reasonable perspective of the world, and have too much cash. Froot Loops  --  that is Amnesty International and so many left-wing NGOsAt least I can say that these groups aren’t funded by whole nations, like the left’s United Nations division.

I suggest these erstwhile do-gooders who blow their cash on funding lunatic organizations like AI find a more worthy charity. Like one which monitors breakfast cereals for crunchiness.

Canada’s refusal to arrest George W. Bush cited in Amnesty’s human rights report

Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA—Canada’s failure to arrest former U.S. president George W. Bush during a visit to B.C. is cited by Amnesty International in its annual report on human rights atrocities around the globe.

Among the cases mentioned is Canada’s failure last fall to arrest Bush when he visited British Columbia, “despite clear evidence that he was responsible for crimes under international law, including torture.” Amnesty had campaigned for Canada to arrest and prosecute the former president.

The demand for Bush’s arrest “was certainly not a frivolous action on our part,” Tackaberry said in an interview Wednesday.

“We knew that there was little likelihood of this actually taking place but the important principle is that George (W) Bush has been implicated in serious human rights violations and Canada has a responsibility to ensure that people within their jurisdiction who are alleged to have been involved in serious human rights violations … that they be brought to justice.

“It’s imperative that when there are serious human rights violations that individuals be held to account,” he added.

At the time of Bush’s visit last October, Amnesty maintained the former president authorized the use of torture against detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, in Afghanistan and Iraq as the U.S. pursued its war on terror following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Meanwhile, here’s an assessment by a former Amnesty International (USA) board member, from SourceWatch:

Prof. Francis A. Boyle (Professor of International Law, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign) from an interview with Dennis Bernstein:

“Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns. To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and womanpower, publicity, you name it, they can throw whatever they want at that…”

Did he not know that about AI before going in? Some people seem to pour Kool Aid on their Fruit Loops for breakfast each morning.

IDs for Beer but Not for Ballots?

I was in Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport recently and had a three-hour layover before I headed back to Miami. So, I did what any sensible gentleman would do—namely, I headed up to the Heineken Bar & Grill to get a beer and roast a fine puros before my plane ride home.

Upon arrival at the bar I found a table, jammed my carry-on underneath it, unzipped my secret 007 storage pouch, extracted my zebra skin cigar holder, and pulled from that sweet piece of leather a Padron 1964 Corona. After getting that bad boy ignited I yanked out my Mac and began to pound away on another common sense column certain to infuriate the progressives while simultaneously making Jesus love me more and more.

As I was sitting there getting into the zone, a waitress approached and asked me what I wanted to drink. I asked her if they had any Heineken. She didn’t get it at first … then she got it and said, “Dude, my day sucks enough as it is. Quit making it more miserable.” I said I was sorry and that I would like a Heineken, to which she replied, “Can I see your ID?” I told her I was flattered but am happily married. She retorted, “Don’t flatter yourself; we card everyone who orders alcohol. It’s the law.”

Check it out: I looked the legal age to swill a beer. I’ve got a full head of hair that might not be turning loose but is definitely turning gray. In addition to my graying locks, I have lines etched into my face from years of laughing my butt off at the inequities and absurdities of the Left, and I have well-developed crow’s-feet from looking down the barrels of guns from many, many cherished years of hunting. Suffice it to say, the waitress knew that I was at least 21—if not 51—but because it was the law she had to make proof positive that I wasn’t a 16-year-old with some weird disease that made me age prematurely into a 50-year-old smart ass.

When she asked me for my ID I didn’t cry racism, or drinking suppression, or call up Kofi Annan and request an international tribunal to cow this chick into beer-serving submission. No, instead I pulled out my ID and complied with the law and was then served a lukewarm Dutch beer.

This past week, Attorney General Eric Holder moved to make it illegal to prove that you’re legal in order to vote in Texas in 2012. I guess with Obama’s sagging poll numbers that Holder is concerned that the incumbent is going to get dusted come November if he doesn’t afford undocumented Democrats the wherewithal to vote early and often. Therefore, Holder wants to open up the floodgates in Tejas to the illegal alien hordes to make certain that el presidente gets four more years to further socialize what remains of our fair land.

As a Texan I think this is pure and uncut grade A horse scat, and I hope to God that my fellow Texans raise holy hell at this egregious overreach into state voting laws.

Call me weird, but if Texans have to brandish an ID to buy cigarettes or beer, coach a youth football team, see an R-rated movie, cash a check, buy Sudafed or spray paint, pick up their children from school early, rent a video, open up a P.O. Box, pick up tickets at will call for a Bon Jovi concert, or rent a kayak to float down the Guadalupe then I don’t think it is too much to ask that a person who waddles up to a voting booth to elect our next president prove that he or she is here legally. Voting is a sacred honor for legal citizens, and I pray to all that is holy that Texans fight Holder and his boss’s overreach into state voting laws like a pit bull.

A terrorist? Me?!

So we’re all terrorists now at Sun News. I had no idea!

I thought I was someone who deplored and condemned terror, who believed in turning the other cheek, and who tried to read, write and think his way through contemporary problems.

My colleagues at the television network seemed rather similar — gentle souls mostly, some with fierce opinions, but none supportive of violence and terror. But, it seems, I got it all wrong.

It must be so, because some genius who taught journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto has told us so.

His name is John Miller and he decided to write about a fun weekend my friend Ezra Levant has planned for Sun News hosts and supporters who want to pay to attend.

Former Toronto Star journalist Miller writes: “Makes you wonder when was the last time a group of ideological warriors went north to train in the backwoods and plot to storm Parliament, blow up the CBC, seize the airwaves and spread terror across the land. Oh yeah, the Toronto 18 did that.

“Didn’t police arrest the lot of them and call them the gravest threat to our democracy? I think a weekend with Ezra and friends could be something just like that.

“The only thing that sets them apart from the Muslim extremists is that Sun Media will be charging you admission.”

Now I have to admit I’d not heard of Miller before this and he posted this dross at the end of last year — the fact nobody seemed to know about the post until this week rather testifies to his lack of profile.

Mind you, his website is worth a read.

Other than proving the man is an appalling writer, it’s also so bursting with hubris I initially thought it was a parody.

He tells us, “my unique journalism experience makes me sought after as an expert witness in legal proceedings” and “I am also an award-winning writer.”

He calls himself the Journalism Doctor. Seriously, this is fun stuff.

But while comedy is good, some people and ideas are not. Miller has worked closely and often with the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose most famous leader and voice was Mohamed Elmasry.

He, of course, was the man who in 2004 explained on my former television show that every Israeli over the age of 18, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, male, female, gay, straight, black, white, pacifist, or warrior, was a valid target for death.

So Miller seems to have some strange allies, making his accusation that we at Sun News are terrorists a little strange to say the least.

Frankly, however, Miller really doesn’t matter.

What does is that this typifies the approach of the left, of the establishment, towards any media they find objectionable.

Rather than welcoming free speech and the open, intelligent exchange of ideas, they seek to control and silence, or simply abuse.

We’ve all seen it before and we’ll see it again.

Ezra’s event is called a Freedom Weekend, and the word freedom is there for a reason. Fight for your liberty because there are metaphorical terrorists out there who want to take it away from you.