Pastor Manning also states that Columbia covered for Obama and gave him grades that would allow him to enter Harvard. The Citizen Wells blog is providing background info that will lend credence to Pastor Manning's claims.
Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance – Notice the Toilet Paper
Last week's column was about something that doesn't exist -- a multi-level strategy to combat the advance of sharia (Islamic law) across the West.
The strategy doesn't exist because there's little understanding that the entrenchment of sharia in the Western zone poses a threat to liberty in the Western zone.
This understanding doesn't exist because the critique of sharia (a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism) required to devise a defensive anti-sharia strategy, is not considered possible.
Why not? The main obstacle is, well, the advance of sharia across the West. In other words, we cannot criticize the spread of sharia simply because sharia, or its influence, has spread. (Sharia Law and Islamic teaching are promoted in America and all Western coluntries education and textbooks as truth, while Christianity, Judaism and other religious beliefs are either not mentioned or promoted as theory). Thus, from Norway to New Haven, from BBC to Fox News, the reflex reaction to critical commentary -- even a newspaper page of political cartoons -- is to follow Islamic law and stop it (or try), or just shut up.
That's certainly what Yale University has done, as events beginning in August demonstrate. That's when news broke that Yale and Yale University Press were omitting the Danish Mohammed cartoons (and other Mohammed imagery) from a forthcoming book expressly about the Danish Mohammed cartoons.
This sudden act of censorship, Yale said, was due to fear of Muslim outrage over the Mohammed cartoons again turning into Muslim violence. (Roger Kimball, Stanley Kramer and I have laid out evidence that Yale's censorship was also due to fear of alienating Muslim donors.) This violence, along with general Muslim outrage, has its roots in Islamic legal prohibitions of life imagery, criticism of Mohammed and sarcasm about Islamic law -- all outlawed by the standard Al Ahzar University-approved sharia manual, Reliance of the Traveller, and all tools for the political cartoonist moved to comment on the connection between Mohammed and jihad violence. And why not? Indeed, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably the most influential Islamic cleric in the world, calls Mohammed "an epitome for religious warriors.
The publication of the Danish cartoons forced the question: What is more important to the West -- freedom of speech, or Islamic law masquerading as something Orwellianly known as community harmony? (The concept of community harmony is part of the progressive or radical program of The (deliberate) Dumbing Down of America that includes homogenizing the world and history and intimidating people with the concept of political correctness that began in the 1920’s – 30’s, but has really taken hold during the pas 40 years and is in warp speed in the United States since the election of Barack Obama).
With its censorship of the Mohammed imagery, Yale chose sharia. But that wasn't all. Wearing my hat as vice president of the International Free Press Society (IFPS), I asked Yale's Steven Smith, master of Branford College, one of Yale's 12 residential colleges, if he would be interested in hosting Kurt Westergaard, the most famous of the Danish cartoonists, at a "master's tea" for students. The IFPS was then finalizing Westergaard's U.S. tour long-planned to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the publication of the cartoons on Sept. 30.
Smith agreed and held the event on Oct. 1. And Yale, it seems, will never be the same.
Of course, Yale was already "never the same," something the Westergaard visit further confirmed. If the Western reaction to the Danish Mohammed cartoons exposed the humiliating bargain the West had already made with Islam, trading away freedom of the press in exchange for "community harmony," the Yale reaction to Westergaard's visit following its censorship of the Mohammed cartoons exposed the rotten fruit at the core of American academia: namely, the politically correct drive to censor material "offensive" to multiculturalism mated to the sharia-correct drive to censor material "offensive" to Islam.
Even now, institutional consternation at Yale over Westergaard continues. In the pages of the Yale Daily News, ire is directed at Westergaard's Yale host, Steven Smith, simply for having issued the invitation, as attested by letters from University Chaplain Sharon Kugler and "coordinator of Muslim Life for the University" Omer Bajwa, and even Smith's fellow Yale masters, Davenport College's Richard Schottenfeld and Tanina Rostain. At a panel this week sponsored by the Chaplain's Office and the Yale Muslim Student Association, several Yale professors discussed "what made the cartoons offensive ... and how the West's response heightened tension." (Given the West's near-universal capitulation, I'd like to have heard that last bit.)
The lesson here? Free speech about Islam at Yale is a liability: something to censor, oppose, even remove physically, as symbolized by the administration's decision to bus students to the edge of campus to attend Westergaard's talk. Campus security -- bomb-sniffing dogs, two SWAT teams -- was so extreme it stood as a reproach to critics of Islam, and perhaps as justification for Yale's decision to censor the cartoons in the first place.
Having shrouded free speech in the Islamic veil, Yale stands exposed.
Reuters
By: Diana West - a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.
Related Resources:
ISLAM: The Fastest Growing Religion in the World – Time to Pay Some Attention
Report: Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide is Muslim
American Prisons Now Hothouses For Islam
Muslim World Becomes Less Intolerant as West Continues to Reach Out in Tolerance
VERY YOUNG MUSLIM GIRL PRAISED FOR HATE AND TALK OF DEATH – 3-yrs-old - Video
YOUNG MUSLIM GIRL PRAISED FOR HATE AND TALK OF DEATH TO INFIDELS (US) – 11-yrs-old - Video
A blog that Scott Edwards and I had created back in September. One of my posts. I am ready to write again..
Posted – 04.18.09 at 12:03pm
Written: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 - Conservatism 101
I was talking to one of my dear friends the other night who is attending Columbia for his second Masters. He is an Obama supporter and a life-long Democrat. He understands that I am a Conservative and a McCain/Palin supporter. We are friends and we have had long debates over what is "right" and what is "left."
At the end of our friendly phone call, he made a point to tell me, "You know, liberals are the smartest and most educated in our country." To which I replied, "Well, I consider myself smart and educated, and I am not a liberal." And this is the impetus for my writing this blog.
It is a wonder to me that someone, who believes to know--because they have had the luxury of an Ivy league education--what is best for the average American. It is a wonder to me that one thinks that he has a better understanding of "Joe the Plumber's" needs, because he hires a guy like Joe to fix his plumbing. (Hey, I hire a plumber too. They are what makes things "run"). And, it is a wonder to me that this person thinks that he or his colleagues are "smarter" because of their Ivy league education.
Elitism? At its' finest. Please do not tell me that I am not the "most" smart or educated because I am not a Ivy League Intellectual. Ivy league education is a privilege. Hard knocks are not, but they can be an advantage.
As an American, I hope to have the freedom and the choices to know what is best for me, my family, my community and my country.
Look, most of us, in our own way, contribute to this country--whether it be through time, work, taxes or charity. We all have a common interest in doing what is best for ourselves and for our community. But, we all have a different opinion on how our contributions are allocated and recognized. The difference, the sheer difference, between a liberal and a conservative is this: A liberal will tell you how they will spend your money. A conservative will let you spend it how you see fit. If you don't have any money? Well, FDR put in place the first of many programs that have been abused by the federal government and welfare opportunists. I am not saying that these programs are not needed, but these programs were developed on assistance, NOT on dependence.
Now come the Taxes! Social Security. AMT. Local Taxes. Federal Taxes. State Taxes. Gas Taxes. Food Taxes. Retail Taxes. Property Taxes. Death taxes. Marriage Taxes. Capital Gains Taxes. Property Taxes. Liquor/Tobacco Taxes. User Taxes. And the list goes on and on and on and on.
Now, imagine my surprise when I hear that Obama/Biden want to just tax more. Instead of creating opportunity, they choose to inhibit it by giving handouts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had forced banks to lend to anyone and everyone. No docs? No problem! The list of government programs and opportunities for the "needy" go on and on and on. WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO? HOW HAVE THESE PROGRAMS, IN THE LAST 30 YEARS, LIFTED THE POOR OUT OF POVERTY? Oh, and by the way, if you ever want to pay more taxes because you feel like you haven't paid enough, there is a form for that. Talk to your accountant.
You see, most of use working, middle class, Americans DO NOT have an Ivy League education. Most of us working Americans do pay taxes. Most of us working American's have never wanted kids to go without education, elderly to go without healthcare, and the environment to go without consideration and conservation. Yet, as a conservative, I am constantly accused of wanting destruction of these very issues. This is simply not the case.
Us conservatives are constantly being accused as a party of the "wealthy." What is most ironic about this statement? Many conservatives do not have an Ivy league education. Many conservatives are not wealthy. We are hard working and educated and eager to lessen government intervention. We are eager to spur entrepreneurship, job creation, smart funding for those who truly, truly need it, with hopes of creating opportunity for those that are able to achieve and want a piece of the American dream.
All of these aforementioned programs have not solved the poverty crisis. Democrats, for the past 30 plus years, have expanded these programs, through excessive taxation, in order to make their constituents reliant on their party. Entrepreneurs and small business take on huge amounts of risk. Liberals do not reward risk--they tax it.
Conservatives have a fundamental belief that government has gotten too large and too complicated. We recognize need and are, therefore, the most charitable of the parties. It is a fact.
So I close in asking this: If liberals are so smart and the most educated, why am I even writing this blog? They have had numerous opportunities and years to right the wrongs. They say they are the champions of the middle class--I guess Joe the Plumber doesn't fit their middle class profile.
The next four years will prove whether entrepreneurship and risk thrive, or if we have created a larger dependency on government. If conservatism has a chance, we will not forget where we came from and what led us to losing our direction in this election.
I am Miss Tory, and I approve of this message.
By Megan Barth – Megan’s Note
Posted: Daily Thought Pad
Related Articles:
