University Wants Students To Stop Using ‘He’ And ‘She’…Wants Them To Say This Unbelievable Thing Instead

The University of Tennessee has a new scheme to cure what ails a world filled with “homophobia” and gender confusions by ordering staff and students to stop using the words “he” and “she” and instead use fantasy pronouns like “xe,” “zir,” and “xyr.”

As the new school year gears up, university students are already finding that indoctrination instead of education is on tap at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where some 27,000 students are discovering the new speech codes are being pushed by a “gay rights official” at the school.

The goal, this official claims, is to make the school a “welcoming and inclusive” place where students won’t feel “marginalized.”

The new speech codes were revealed by the school’s “office for diversity and inclusion” on Wednesday; they warned students not to “assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems.”

The fantasy pronouns were written by Donna Braquet, a gay rights official at the university, and includes such fantastic made-up words as “zhem” in place of them, “hirs” instead of hers, and “xem” instead of him.

Anticipating that these new words are impossible to make sense of, Braquet helpfully included instructions on how to ascertain which strange pronoun someone might want “hir” fellows to use.

Braquet insisted that every time a student meets someone new, they are to ask for guidance. “‘Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” she says in the new speech code.

Not everyone thinks this wild new scheme with its many complicated phrases and odd new words is a great idea.

“It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” State Senator Mae Beavers, R-17th District) told Fox News. “If you must interview a student before you greet the student, that’s not acceptance–that’s just absurd.”

“The idea a child would want to be called by a gender neutral term is absolutely ridiculous,” she added. “It’s getting so crazy in this country.”

“This isn’t inclusion. This is the radical transformation of our lives and language,” Beavers concluded.

After ridicule was heaped upon the university over this new speech code scheme, a university spokesman hastened to say that the new pronouns weren’t mandatory.

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

‘I Am A Liberal’

I am a Liberal.

I support the right to kill you for the first 9 months of your life and even a little bit afterward, if no one is looking.

I support gun free zones so you cannot defend yourself or anyone else if any of my disenfranchised brothers or sisters express their righteous rage.

I am against Wall Street and small business–especially if it is located in Ferguson, Missouri, or any other city where I decide racial injustice has been perpetrated.

I detest all you breeders who keep bringing in future generations who will be breathing my air.

I support bigger government and unlimited taxpayer-funded spending on gender bender hormones and other new needs of the day.

I say open the Southern gates and let future liberal voters in by the tens of millions to even the score, to have free and fair elections where anyone who arrives at a voting station can cast a private vote without identification.

And while we’re at it, let’s make Election Day a national holiday with polls only open 9 to 5.

I oppose all forms of private education and outlawing homeschooling. Let everyone get a public school education from pre-school to college graduation day, so we are all on the same page on the vital social issues of the day.

I’m for banning all forms of Judeo-Christian religion but also allowing Islam and secular humanism.

I’m for total 24/7 surveillance so that the business class pays their fair share.

I’m for merging America with the world for governance since sovereignty is so last-millennium.

I oppose Climate Change and am willing to sacrifice trillions of dollars of other people’s money to fight climate until it changes no more.

I am a Liberal. And I vote.

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

Exposed: Oregon’s Liberal Ride To Corruption

One-party rule in Oregon has left the state in scandal. From pulling the plug on the state’s version of ObamaCare because of political considerations (costing taxpayers $300 million) to the willingness of the political class to engage in crony capitalism with “green” billionaires like Tom Steyer, the state government is currently being combed over by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Congress.

The scandals have a common thread — former Gov. John Kitzhaber and his political cronies. And now, we have a smoking gun in this scandal. A report from the Energy and Environment Legal Institute Report is titled: “Private Interests And Public Office: Coordination Between Governors, the Obama White House and the Tom Steyer – ‘Founded and Funded’ Network of Advocacy Groups to Advance the ‘Climate’ Agenda.” This report contains emails and other evidence of coordination in this scandal.

Kitzhaber was a former emergency room doctor who set out to “save American healthcare.” In other words, he wanted to nationalize it. For a while, he played the fawning media like a fiddle. The crown jewel in his experiment was the creation of Oregon’s Health Care Exchange, Cover Oregon. Flush with hundreds of millions in federal cash, the state set out to create a model exchange to prove to the world that government-run health care could work. It didn’t.

After running ads and promoting the site, contractors and tech experts pleaded with the governor and his staff to not “go live” with the exchange. It wasn’t ready. Following week after week of embarrassment by the failure to sign up one enrollee, the governor tasked his political team to oversee the project. With an election looming, they advised him to pull the plug and join the federal exchange — just to save their political bacon.

At the same time, Kitzhaber’s team got into bed with green billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer has been spending his fortune over the past four years promoting every green energy scheme under the sun. From climate change legislation to a failed initiative in California that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and promised to create thousands of jobs, Steyer has been on a losing streak. Despite spending close to $100 million in the 2014 elections, the vast majority of the candidates he backed lost.

Steyer has made no secret that he views involvement in green energy as a personal profit center. While plowing his millions into green energy groups, he subsequently was involved in green energy companies like Kilowatt Systems, LLC. Steyer is listed as a “manager” of the company which says on their website: “We were created to help [solar and energy efficiency] industry professionals make more sales. More financing options and more customers equal more profit. It’s that simple.” By the public electing politicians who were willing to use taxpayer dollars to push green energy schemes, Steyer gets richer. Kitzhaber was a nice target for the billionaire, and Oregon seemed like a nice potential profit center.

A new report by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute details how Kitzhaber’s team and his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, an environmental activist who did “consulting work” promoting the climate agenda, worked closely with outside groups funded in part by Steyer to promote a taxpayer-dependent green energy project.

According to the Portland Oregonian, “(Dan) Carol is a former Democratic opposition researcher who worked on behalf of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.” Carol copied governors’ aides and contractors/consultants on emails, also including Steyer — “a billionaire spending $50 million of his own money to elect, among other things, senators who would push his issues” Steyer in fact prepared to go all-in on policy through his “NextGen Climate Action group [which] was reportedly ready to spend as much as $100 million or more in 2014.”

As the report shows, “A recent Oregon production of two former Kitzhaber aides’ work-related, private-account correspondence confirm that ‘Kitzhaber told his staff that new state energy policies should match those that special interests were paying his fiancée to promote.’ One damning directive from Kitzhaber, which contradicts previous denials, stated in blunt and pertinent part, ‘Cylvia needs to be advocating the same clean economy policy in her role as spokesperson/advocate for the Governor’s Office and her role as a Clean Economy fellow. There cannot be any daylight between them…. This is another reason why she needs a role in developing the (state) policy itself.’”

Once the cover was blown, Kitzhaber was forced to resign. The FBI is looking into the actions of Kitzhaber’s fiancee, his aides and their relationship with outside environmental groups looking to profit from the taxpayers. Congress is demanding documents regarding the Cover Oregon exchange scandal. These are dark days for the Evergreen State–but more critically, an important lesson on why there should be a separation between businesses and government.

One-party rule leads to corruption and scandal. It does not matter what party is in control; it seems like one party rule leads to corruption and self-dealing.

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

This Famous ‘Star Wars’ Hero Just Reacted To Horrifying TV Murders In A Stunning Way

Even though his acting career has been built on playing an iconic movie character who leads an armed rebellion against an evil, tyrannical, merciless empire, Mark Hamill has now taken a stand that seems to completely contradict the nature of his Luke Skywalker role in the Star Wars film franchise. But, of course, Hamill’s hypocrisy wouldn’t mark the first time a Hollywood star has come out in favor of greater restrictions on gun ownership, even though denying the actor access to personal weapons for movie roles would be to deprive that performer of a livelihood.

Joining a chorus of liberals calling for more gun control immediately after the horrible, on-air, ambush murders of two TV journalists in Virginia, Hamill let his social media followers and fans know he wants the government to tighten its squeeze on gun rights in America.

Image Credit: Twitter/Mark Hamill

Image Credit: Twitter/Mark Hamill

Hamill’s tweet about how “Australia fixed it” refers to the country’s 1996 government ban on some types of personal weapons, its promotion of a handgun buyback program, and imposition of stricter licensing and registration requirements. Clearly, Hamill thought that the shocking murders of the young TV reporter and her cameraman that were broadcast live early Wednesday could have been “fixed” if only the United States had done what Australia did nearly twenty years ago.

However, there are the starry-eyed musings of an actor whose life is spent living and playing in a fantasy, and then there are the facts.

Yes, reaction to Hamill’s “ENOUGH!” tweet was mixed, with lots of positive and negative comments praising and ridiculing his take on the tragedy and its place in the gun control debate. But “Luke Skywalker’s” reference to the Australian experience is truly a comparison of apples and kiwi fruit.

As a June 25, 2015 article on The Federalist points out, the “myth” of Australia’s successful gun control program has been built upon a government program that relied upon confiscation:

Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation.

When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

In addition, the level of private gun ownership in Australia has always been far below that of the United States. A recent survey showed that some 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does. And there are skeptics who believe the number is higher than that, as people who were asked about gun ownership may well have been reluctant to tell the questioner they had a gun in the house.

Regarding the part of Mark Hamill’s Twitter comment congratulating Andy Parker for his “new mission” in life, that referred to what the father of murdered reporter Alison Parker said — that he would seek to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals.

So, as far as “Luke Skywalker” is concerned, there are no doubt a number of Star Wars fans who would hope that, in this case, the “Force” is not with him. They might well side with the Twitter user who responded to Hamill’s anti-gun message this way:

So how would the rebellion have defeated the empire w/o weapons, smart guy?

FYI: the new Star Wars movie, Rogue One, is set for release in December of next year.

h/t: Young Conservatives

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

Black Pastors Protest Margaret Sanger At Smithsonian

Margaret Sanger is a saint in the feminist church. She is a charter member of the progressive hall of fame. Liberals revere this woman who preached “race improvement” and denounced what she called “human weeds,” “morons,” “idiots,” “imbeciles,” and the “dead weight of human waste.”

Hillary Clinton glows that she is “in awe of” Sanger. She said so in 2009 upon receiving Planned Parenthood’s “highest honor” that year: its coveted Margaret Sanger Award. Likewise effusive was Nancy Pelosi when she proudly accepted the award in 2014.

Speaking to Planned Parenthood a year earlier, Barack Obama, America’s first African-American president, hailed the organization founded by this racial eugenicist committed to creating a “race of thoroughbreds” and purging America’s “race of degenerates.” “Thank you, Planned Parenthood,” and “God bless you,” said Obama to a giddy crowd of ecstatic pro-choice women. The president commended Planned Parenthood’s “extraordinary” and “remarkable work.”

The love by liberals for Planned Parenthood and its founder knows no bounds. A professor blogging at the New York Times argues for placing Margaret’s mug on the $20 bill.

And alas, no less than the Smithsonian, America’s museum, boasts a handsome bust of Sanger in its stately National Portrait Gallery. Margaret is there enshrined in the Smithsonian’s vaunted “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

This brings me to my reason for writing here today: a group of African-American pastors are demanding the removal of Sanger’s bust from the Smithsonian.

“Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies, an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as ‘the feeble minded;’ speaking at a rally of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers,” states the letter from Ministers Taking a Stand. “Also the notorious ‘Negro Project,’ which sought to limit, if not eliminate black births, was her brainchild.” The pastors quote an infamous December 1939 letter from Sanger to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society, where, in the context of discussing the Negro Project, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

The succinct, powerful statement from the pastors adds: “Despite these well-documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!”

Amen to that.

Liberals must be baffled by this. This isn’t the esteemed Planned Parenthood foundress they learned to admire in their college classrooms. Margaret Sanger, a racist? Huh? They never heard that in American History 101. Where could these crazy charges possibly come from?

The answer is a myriad of authoritative sources. For starters, one might consult Sanger’s own words. On pages 366-367 of her 1938 autobiography, published by W.W. Norton, one of the leading New York publishing houses, she spoke warmly of her May 1926 speech to the women’s chapter of the KKK in Silverlake, New Jersey. Sanger seemed eager to speak to the group. After getting off the train, she was escorted by car along winding roads to a literal barn hidden in the country. There, the undeterred Planned Parenthood matron waited patiently for nearly three hours while her white-hooded sisters engaged in their incendiary routine. She observed “figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much.” “Eventually,” recorded Sanger of the toasty atmosphere, “the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.”

Sanger was tight-lipped regarding what she shared with the klanswomen at their rally, though apparently she was extremely successful and satisfied with herself: “I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York…. It was nearly one before I reached Trenton, and I spent the night in a hotel.”

The Planned Parenthood founder’s KKK talk was a smash hit. Not only did it go very late, after a long wait, but it earned Sanger a dozen new invitations from the klan-sisters. The KKK was quite excited about the work of Planned Parenthood’s founder.

Thus, it hardly comes out-of-nowhere when a group of African-American pastors today asks the Smithsonian: “How can a person like Sanger, who found common cause with the racial agenda of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), be ranked among true champions of ‘justice?’”

Precisely. Such words pierce the liberal heart like a dagger. As many conservatives have experienced, when you point out to liberals that Planned Parenthood aborts (by far) a disproportionate number of unborn African-American babies, they go wild with rage and name-calling. You’re apt to be reflexively called every name in the liberal playbook for raising this one. As we watch weekly the ghastly Planned Parenthood video exposé released by the Center for Medical Progress, in which Sanger’s organization’s “medical personnel” nonchalantly discuss dissecting baby parts while sipping Chianti and nibbling Caesar’s salad, bear in mind that most of these babies are African-American. Which among them might have been another Rosa Parks, Ben Carson, Martin Luther King Jr., Arthur Ashe, or even Barack Obama?

These African-American pastors know that. Indeed, they show (with a map included) that 70 percent of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods. Thus, they’re undertaking their own exposé. Their letter, they say, will be but one “in a series of actions we will be taking to expose the evil of honoring Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.”

Again, amen to that.

If liberals genuinely care about justice, they should join these African-American pastors in seeking the removal of Margaret Sanger’s bust from the “Struggle for Justice” exhibit at America’s preeminent museum.

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