LGBT ‘Equality Act Of 2015,’ Marriage, And Intolerance

I am having another one of my “Stop the world, I’m getting off” moments. This stuff is nuts now.

It really is the Twilight Zone. Congress is set to pass a new LGBT “Equality Act of 2015,” which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 toward outlawing discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and “gender identity” or transgenders. Already, Google and other corporations such as Facebook, General Mills, Nike, Levi Strauss, Apple, Dow Chemicals and American Airlines support this addition, despite that it will be used by activists to push their particular social agenda onto those who believe in more traditional lifestyles.

Lesbian couples who have sued and persecuted bakers or photographers who wouldn’t serve them, even though the couples easily found others who would serve them, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to using the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s lifestyles onto others who oppose such lifestyles.

But to me, the activists are like the traditionalists pushing “Defense of Marriage” acts of legislation, those who believe that their view of marriage is the one and only way that all people must legally be allowed to have a marriage or contract. Just how Christian is it to use the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s personal lifestyle and marital or relationship preferences onto others? Just who are these traditionalists to use the State to prohibit others from their right to freedom of contract?

Sadly, still many of those on the traditional Left and the traditional Right just don’t get private property, private property rights, contract rights, self-ownership, freedom of association, freedom of non-association, and freedom of thought and conscience. If you own property, regardless of what that is, your home or your business, you have a private property right to not associate with anyone you don’t want to associate with, for any reason, no matter how repugnant others feel your reasons are. They don’t have a right to force themselves onto you, or to force you to do extra labor to serve them.

And in the area of marital contracts, you and your neighbors have no moral right or authority to interfere with others’ right to establish voluntary contracts regarding their personal lives, finances or romances.

Only those who are the parties to contracts have the sole right to determine the terms of contracts and who may be the parties to such contracts, because all individuals have a property right in their own persons, lives and property to participate in any voluntary contract they wish. And that includes marital contracts.

And in the same way in modern America, Christians or otherwise traditionalists shouldn’t have to provide services for those whose lifestyles they find counter to their own values system. And it is immoral to force them to do so, or take them to court and extort finances from them because their rejection of you “hurts your feelings.”

Such intrusiveness and aggressions go against the “Live and Let Live” philosophy of liberty that came from the Enlightenment and contributed a great deal to modern civilization. These days, I’m not really sure that most Christians believe in “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

That is exactly what we have when the LGBT activists such as the lesbian couple sue those Christian cake bakers. And that is what we will have when “Civil Rights” will include a Christian school being forced by law to hire homosexual or transgenders as teachers against the will and personal values of the owners.

The social activists on the traditional Left and the moralists on the traditional Right remind me of the pre-1960s public schools forcing Jewish, atheist or otherwise non-Christian kids to participate in Christian-centered religious prayer or ceremonies, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Abington School District v. Schempp decision. Look, as a Jew, I shouldn’t be forced to participate in Christian-centered Bible reading, or be made to proclaim some belief in “Our Lord Jesus Christ” (because, if you don’t mind my saying so, I don’t happen to believe in Jesus as “The Lord” or “Our Lord”!).

So to further confuse things during the 1960s, the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed segregation should not have included private property or privately owned businesses, regardless of their “accommodations” status. The Act should only have addressed the public schools, parks, City Hall, the local buses, etc. That confusion between privately owned and “publicly owned” (cringe) property has been used to give some people who belong to specially-protected classes extra “rights” to enter other people’s property or to force others to associate with them. That’s the bottom line here.

But this new group of people to be protected from “discrimination” added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 now has to do with social lifestyles, not even gender or skin color, some social lifestyles which many people find extremely objectionable–and they have every right in the world not to associate or do business with such people.

Forced acceptance or association with those who practice certain lifestyles and behaviors, regardless of the personal beliefs and religious views of those who are being forced to associate, is just as much a violation of the right of association and voluntary contract as were the Jim Crow laws which forced private people to not associate with others regardless of their own personal preferences. In the South, white private business owners who wanted black people to patronize their businesses and were openly allowing them on the premises were being arrested and beaten up by local police goons and racist thugs.

And regarding society’s intolerance of non-Christians, the outspoken atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was involved in the Supreme Court’s decision banning forced prayer and Bible-reading in public schools, was the target of much criticism as well as police brutality. Mrs. Murray (prior to her remarrying and adding “O’Hair”) did not believe in God or Christianity, and she believed it was her right not to have her child forced to participate in Bible reading in school. In this 1965 interview with Jerry Williams on WBBM in Chicago, Murray tells of her experiences, including her being the victim of Baltimore police breaking into her home and beating her “savagely,” as well as her 74-year-old mother. When they dragged Mrs. Murray outside her home, she said there were over 100 of her neighbors outside, some of whom she heard yell things such as “Hit her again! Kick her again! Kill her!” She said the hospital, Union Memorial, thought that her 74-year-old mother had either a “brain concussion or a fractured skull.” She said that there were “11 to 14″ police officers. And guess who was charged with “assault”? (Hmmm, why am I being reminded of Saudi Arabia at this time?) Online, most sources such as Wikipedia go with the police account of Mrs. Murray’s “allegedly assaulting five Baltimore police officers.” (The linked interview is Part 1. Hear the other parts of the interview.)

I would bet that many people cheered on the police at that time, just as William F. Buckley, Jr. cheered on the Chicago police in their brutality against the 1968 Democrat Convention protesters, as that is how a lot of people viewed “non-believers” in the old days. Police violence is how some protesters of Jim Crow laws were treated and how liberal private business owners were treated if they violated segregation laws on their own premises.

And, given how the LGBT and other social activists turn to the violence of the State to impose their own views, morals or values onto others, when traditionalist business owners continue to refuse to associate with those in certain groups because the traditionalists find such lifestyles objectionable, please do not be shocked to see the same kind of brutal police “enforcement” of the newest addition of LGBT to the Civil Rights Act against those traditionalists who engage in civil disobedience. Especially in Obama’s America.

Yes, I am aware that homosexuals have in the past been targeted for violence by criminal goons. But in Obama’s America, we may be seeing it go the other way; and activists merely suing businesspeople who refuse to serve homosexual couples might not be all that happens.

Like the intolerance against atheists (and Jews and others as well) of the Madalyn Murray O’Hair era and the intolerance toward segregation of that earlier time as well, what we have in 21st Century America is political correctness, censorship and the thought police. For the intolerant on the Left, it is no longer about “tolerance” of homosexuals or transgenders, but forced acceptance. And it’s not, “This isn’t about sex, it’s about living a life just like everyone else but just happening to be gay,” because yes it is about sex. Not just sex, but sex and freakishness. It’s about flaunting their sexuality and bringing attention to themselves. And yes, a lot of people such as those Christian cake bakers find it all objectionable; and they have a right to not have those things forced on them and their families.

And speaking of freedom of speech and association, anti-bullying laws now are attempting to outlaw speech consisting of criticism of homosexuality or of the LGBT lobby and force “diversity training” in the schools. And Laws mandating teaching alternative lifestyles in the schools. Teaching acceptance of homosexuality in kindergarten. Kids in nursery school having to sign a form promising to refrain from “transphobic language.”

And besides all the made-up “diseases” now that kids are being labeled with, such as Asperger’s, ADHD, ADD, etc., we have very young children now being encouraged to be the opposite gender if they show the slightest signs of opposite-sex characteristics. For instance, this lady named Mimi tells us in her Boston Globe op-ed that her daughter, referred to as her “son” and “he” rather than the correct “she,” is just fine with being a boy, as that is what the child has decided, and by several years ago already. A little girl who is now … only 5.

Stop the world, I’m getting off.

I hope that this lady Mimi (I assume Mimi is a lady, as “Mimi” is usually a female’s name.) doesn’t sue me for defamation or slander. But in my opinion — and I do have a right to express my opinion on this — it is terribly sad what today’s parents and the schools are doing to the kids, wrecking them emotionally and intellectually. According to CNS, Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Hospital has pointed out that, besides the higher rates of depression and suicide of transgenders, among those who at a young age had expressed “transgender feelings,” 70-80% had shed such feelings over time. I guess Mimi is a little too impatient to let nature take its course. Oh, well.

And now there are bathroom bills or laws in which the ladies will have to deal with males going into the ladies room. You see, for the one transgender going into the wrong rest room, it doesn’t matter to him how he is making the ladies in there feel (like, really uncomfortable, self-conscious, violated — ya think?). No, what matters to the narcissistic restroom intruders is what they feel.

In fact, it’s all about emotion and not tolerance or reason. For example, the lesbian couple who sued the Christian cake bakers felt offended by the bakers rejecting their patronage. Even though they easily found another baker to serve them, their feelings being hurt was what mattered to them here, and they wanted to punish the Christian bakers for hurting their feelings. And that’s it. The hurt feelings industry is what “anti-bullying” is all about now. Perhaps all the people who criticized Madalyn Murray O’Hair for her fight for freedom of thought also felt their feelings were hurt by someone who merely didn’t believe in religion as they did.

I really wish I could get those “Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, and that’s it!” robots to see how their wanting to use the power of the State to interfere with others’ right to freedom of contract and pursuit of happiness is the same thing as these activists and lobbyist groups using the governmental powers and “Civil Rights” to impose their own personal views onto others. I probably will not convince most, however.

But to conclude, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected groups covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will secure for the hurt feelings industry and the homosexuality promoters a new government-police-enforced power to shut people up, those who object to perverse lifestyles and don’t want to associate with people who practice them. And it will stifle critics of the phony transgender cult. The activists are really getting to the masses via media and the government schools, with political correctness, censoring those who question the absurd, and stifling the non-compliant traditionalists.

This article originally appeared on Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

More Political Correctness Censorship: This Time From NY Gilbert And Sullivan Players

The New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players (NYGASP) were going to perform The Mikado in December. But, according to WQXR, because of complaints of “perpetrating Japanese caricatures,” and because of not including actual Asian performers, the group has canceled their performances of The Mikado, and will instead perform The Pirates of Penzance.

C’mon, you ultra-sensitive nudniks out there; it’s only a show, it’s only a comic opera, a dramatization, for crying out loud. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow up!

In their announcement of this most recent caving to the extremists of the political correctness industry, NYGASP writes that they “never intended to give offense and the company regrets the missed opportunity to adapt its production of Gilbert & Sullivan’s 130-year-old satire of Victorian society to respond to contemporary criticism of some elements of traditional performance practice.”

Talk about nuts. You see, these are performances with actors. The actors don’t have to be of the same ethnic origin as their characters, as long as the actors are talented in portraying the characters they are supposed to portray. And also, some artistic works do “perpetrate ethnic caricatures” in one way or another. It’s only a play, or comedy. And Mikado is from 1885.

I can’t believe that so many people are so offended by this that they would write a letter or call this group to complain. There are so many thin-skinned people in America now, and in Europe as well, as we can see from the Europeans’ own idiotic “hate crimes” laws now. What a bunch of morons. (Ooops, I hope they don’t sue me for “hate.”)

And it’s one thing for NYGASP to apologize for possibly offending someone (or presenting a show which someone perceived to be “offensive”), but it’s another thing to actually cancel the whole thing.

Even the Metropolitan Opera went on with the show, with their performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (which one could argue has much more potential to elicit hurt or offense than The Mikado). The Met went on with the show despite complaints, the massive letter-writing campaign, the push for censorship, the push to have that production closed down, and the protesters with signs outside the opera house. (And those protesters and calls for censorship tend to be from the conservative side of things. After they constantly criticize college campuses for intolerant speech codes, and criticize the whole political correctness industry, the conservatives — and “liberals,” too — then go on to try to suppress any criticism or negative portrayal of Israel as possible. Hypocrites. But I digress.)

So the Met courageously goes on with the show, but New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players cave to the thought police and they self-censor. That’s life in the 21st Century, the Era of Ultra-Thin-Skinnedness.

This commentary originally appeared at Scott’s blog.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Group Hangs Pro-Life Flyers At Big University. Within Hours, Something Despicable Happens

Image for representational purposes only.

Almost as quickly as a College Republican group posted flyers calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, liberals tore them down and posted an obscene gesture on social media bragging about their exploits.

On Wednesday night, the American University College Republicans (CR) went around their Washington, D.C., campus, lawfully posting flyers advocating Planned Parenthood being defunded, based on what has been revealed through a series of undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress.

Approximately two hours after they had posted the last of their flyers, this image showed up on a Twitter account called @AUJusticeLeague.

american AU Justice TweetThe account has since been taken down.

Campus Reform reports that: “Several CR members and other conservative students responded to the tweet, lambasting the group not only for its censorious actions, but also for hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym.”

The first to engage was Andrew Magloughlin, president of the Students for Rand group at AU, who tweeted: 

“’Too scared to release your name?’ taunted Tom Herbert, treasurer of American CR’s, prompting the group to reply, “we would also like to continue our efforts in the future, so revealing our names would be slightly contrary, doncha think?’” according to Campus Reform.  Krista Chavez, president of the AU chapter of the conservative group Network of Enlightened Women, tweeted: 

Sam Shutmate, vice president of the AU CR’s, told Campus Reform that 86 percent of the university’s student body identifies themselves as liberals; nonetheless, he said that “even a lot of the liberals on campus have agreed that it was a really low-class, disrespectful move.”

Kelly Alexander, Director of Public relations for AU, told Campus Reform that there is no registered group called the AU Justice League, and that, “AU does not approve of the behavior that was displayed regarding the recent removal of pro-life flyers that were posted around campus.”

Emily Jashinsky, writing for Breibart, speculated how different the response would likely be if conservatives had been guilty of the same type of censorship.

What would happen if a conservative campus organization tore down #BlackLivesMatter posters and gave them the middle finger? Al Sharpton would call an Uber and be there in ten minutes. There would be rallies. The conservative group would be defunded and removed from campus. Students with megaphones would be shouting melodramatic soliloquies on racism between classes. Like Ahmed the clock maker, President Obama would hail the liberal students as heroes for holding their conservative classmates accountable and they would spend a morning in the West Wing.

‘Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death’: The Loss Of Our Freedoms In The Wake Of 9/11

“Since mankind’s dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We’ve seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse.” ― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and acclimated to life in the American Surveillance State.

The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

Ironically, the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks occurs just days before the 228th anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution. Yet while there is much to mourn about the loss of our freedoms in the years since 9/11, there is virtually nothing to celebrate.

The Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which has historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all sanctioned by a corrupt government run by Congress, the White House and the courts—a recitation of the Bill of Rights now sounds more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we should possess.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Constitution has been on life support for some time now; and all efforts at resuscitating it may soon prove futile.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document. However, the reality we must come to terms with is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned; and “we the people” are seen as little more than cattle to be branded and eventually led to the slaughterhouse.

Consider the state of our freedoms, and judge for yourself whether Osama Bin Laden was right when he warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed,” and that the “U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Yet despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield than for a country founded on freedom. Police shootings of unarmed citizens continue to outrage communities, while little is really being done to demilitarize law enforcement agencies. Indeed, just recently, North Dakota became the first state to legalize law enforcement use of drones armed with weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets, beanbags, pepper spray and Tasers.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil. Moreover, as a result of SWAT team raids (more than 80,000 a year) where police invade homes, often without warrants, and injure and even kill unarmed citizens, the barrier between public and private property has been done away with, leaving us with armed government agents who act as if they own our property.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors. Case in point: Texas police forced a 21-year-old woman to undergo a warrantless vaginal search by the side of the road after she allegedly “rolled” through a stop sign.

The use of civil asset forfeiture schemes to swell the coffers of police forces has also continued to grow in popularity among cash-strapped states. The federal government continues to strong-arm corporations into providing it with access to Americans’ private affairs, from emails and online transactions to banking and web surfing. Coming in the wake of massive leaks about the inner workings of the NSA and the massive secretive surveillance state, it was revealed that the government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 every day for failing to comply with the NSA’s mass data collection program known as PRISM. Meanwhile, AT&T has enjoyed a profitable and “extraordinary, decades-long” relationship with the NSA.

The technological future appears to pose even greater threats to what’s left of our Fourth Amendment rights, with advances in biometric identification and microchip implants on the horizon making it that much easier for the government to track not only our movements and cyber activities but our very cellular beings. Barclays has already begun using a finger-scanner as a form of two-step authentication to give select customers access to their accounts. Similarly, Motorola has been developing thin “digital tattoos” that will ensure that a phone’s owner is the only person who may unlock it. Not to be overlooked are the aerial spies—surveillance drones—about to take to the skies in coming years, as well as the Drive Smart programs that will spy on you (your speed, movements, passengers, etc.) while you travel the nation’s highways and byways.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty; and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights. That’s the crux of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the government’s use of asset forfeiture to strip American citizens of the funds needed to hire a defense attorney of their choosing.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. However, when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that it’s “we the people” who can and should be determining what laws are just, what activities are criminal and who can be jailed for what crimes.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether. For example, a California appeals court is being asked to consider “whether years of unpredictable delays from conviction to execution” constitute cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, although 900 individuals have been sentenced to death in California since 1978, only 13 have been executed. As CBS News reports, “More prisoners have died of natural causes on death row than have perished in the death chamber.”

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so. Thus, once the government began violating the non-enumerated rights granted in the Ninth Amendment, it was only a matter of time before it began to trample the enumerated rights of the people, as explicitly spelled out in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded, while reducing us to a system of slavery disguised as a democracy.

The film V for Vendetta is a powerful commentary on how totalitarian governments such as our own exploit fear and use mass surveillance, censorship, terrorism, and militarized tactics to control, oppress and enslave.

As the lead character V observes:

Where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

How will you have it? Will you simply comply while the train heads down the track to a modern-day Auschwitz? Or will you become a free person and resist? To quote Patrick Henry, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Idiot Professors Being The Racist Pots Calling The Kettle Black

There is a very distressing post by Mac Slavo at SHTFplan.com, about these college professors who not only suggest that their students act like fools in censoring themselves and in being overly self-conscious for being white, but the faux teachers are actually threatening to give students lower grades for not complying with the censorship.

So these professors are actually telling the world just how intolerant and closed-minded they are, and now they are telling the parents of these students that those parents’ tuition payments are worthless. Why send your kids to college where they would get good grades if they do good work and learn the course material in normal circumstances, when now it appears that the students might fail a course for not being sufficiently moronic like these idiot professors?

At Washington State University, for example, if students use terms such as “male” and “female” (I am not. Making. This. Up.), “students risk a failing grade,” according to a “Women and Popular Culture” professor’s syllabus. I’m glad I didn’t take a “Women in Popular Culture” course when I was in college. Obviously, that course material will be critical in getting better paying jobs after college graduation!

Another Washington State University professor writes in his syllabus, “understand and consider the rage of people who are victims of systematic injustice…” (You mean like all the qualified white people who are denied jobs or placement in colleges because of their whiteness?); and he concludes, “James Baldwin wrote that people of color have an obligation to feel rage over this nation’s history of racism.” It is a shame that some elitist professor is putting all that pressure on some young black student to “feel rage,” when all the guy really wants to do is get through his classes so he can go back to the dorm and party it up, like all the other students.

The first professor also says the students risk a failing grade for not “deferring” to “non-white” students. How insulting, in my view. I mean insulting to the “non-white” students! But this just shows what these idiot professors think of their black students, that the black students need to be “deferred” to, like they are cripples or something. If I were a young black student, I would say “No thanks” to the clown masquerading as a college professor. Just treat me as just another student, if you don’t mind. I think that many of these professors smoked a lot of pot and did other drugs as well, really frying their brains so that they don’t think rationally by the time they are in their mid-20s. (And frankly, look at all the burn-outs we have in the White House and other Washington apparatchiks; they are totally fried.)

This “white guilt” crap really is just that, a lot of crap. Only collectivists think that way. If you are someone who has not harmed anyone, then you have no guilt, black or white, Asian or Hispanic, etc. You are an individual. The real racist is someone who tells others that they have guilt or are bad just because of what their skin color is. And these professors are also racists when they demean black students by making them out to be cripples. And I think those racist professors should cut it out.

This commentary originally appeared at Scott’s blog and is reprinted here with permission. 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth