• Influential study published by an Israeli academic at America’s top military school seeks to brainwash future military leaders into believing those who advocate small government, individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty are the enemy
At West Point where cadets are groomed into officers, a new 148-page report released on January 15 is urging enlisted men and women to be on alert for “terrorists” in the form of those who consider themselves patriots.
This study, released by the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, is entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” Its author, Professor Arie Perliger, the Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, holds membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as well as being a former instructor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Considering his background, Perliger warns that growing legions of conservative-minded citizens across the U.S. pose a serious threat to our nation’s safety. Yet, whom precisely does Perliger deem as being affiliated with what he labels the “violent far right?”
In his own words, Perliger placed a bulls-eye on those who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”
Even more specifically, Perliger asserted that other so-called extremists fall into the categories of anti-federalists, fundamentalist Christians, survivalists, gun-rights advocates, libertarians, pro-lifers, and those who oppose high taxation.
Not content with simply fingering these broad-reaching factions, Perliger zeroed in on another favorite globalist target. “Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a New World Order.”
This umbrella characterization includes constitutionalists, those wary of a growing police state, and political activists such as some tea partiers. Thus, by using manipulative, emotionally-charged language intended to divide-and-conquer, Perliger equates those interested in preserving their individual freedoms with skinheads, neo-Nazis and militia members. Or, even more condescendingly, he smears conservatives as being backward, archaic and living in an era that has passed them by. In contrast, Perliger applauds liberals as future-oriented and progressive in their views.
Dr. Herbert W. Titus, a constitutional law professor and former dean of the Regent University School of Law “says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.”
Titus told WorldNetDaily: “Professor Perliger has adopted the strategy of many left-wing members of the professoriate, concentrating on the behavior of a few in order to discredit many who hold similar views but who do not engage in any form of violence.”
“His theory is that of the iceberg, that which as seen may be small, but it hides what is a much larger threat just below the surface. Obviously, the professor disagrees with those who favor small government, cutting back of federal government encroachments upon the powers of the state and to discredit this movement focuses on a few gun-toting militia,” Titus said.
“Like so many in the Obama administration, Perliger does not want to engage in any dialogue on the issues, but just discredit an entire political movement by ad hominem charged words,” Titus said. “Perliger is not a serious scholar, but a propagandist for the existing regime.”
Finish reading this at the American Free Press.
Apparently Rubio taking a sip of water is a big deal. In fact the left is trying to call it a drinking problem.
That’s how you know they don’t have the intellectual fortitude to respond to his response.
much more found at the Looking Spoon.
We need the Second Amendment to protect us from Leftist professors like this who want to kill free speech
The title of of this leftist professor’s article is “How much free speech do we need?” So anti-American a concept, he had to go to Al-Jazeera to publish it. Of course, it’s hardly a surprise that a media outlet favored by Al-Qaeda and Al-Gore would concur with the idea that the First Amendment must be revised to restrict speech that is offensive to the most offensive people on earth – Muslims.
Erik Bleich is Professor of Political Science and Director of International Politics and Economics at Middlebury College in Vermont* (among the most far left of colleges in one of the most far left states in America) and is the author of The Freedom to Be Racist? How the United States and Europe Struggle to Preserve Freedom and Combat Racism, published by Oxford University Press.
*Vermont introduced legislation in 2011 that would restrict free speech on the internet: Bill to kill free speech
Bleich contends that the United States is a “dramatic outlier” when it comes to protection of inflammatory speech.
Al-Jazeera (h/t Allan I) The tragic events of the past week have reminded us that freedom of speech can have deadly consequences. In the United States, many journalists, jurists, and academics believe that we must robustly defend freedom for the thought that we hate. This view is obviously not shared in most Muslim countries. But the current American stance on free speech is also not popular in other established liberal democracies, nor has it always been the prevailing wisdom in the United States. It is time to rethink the rationale behind America’s radical free speech absolutism that protects the promotion of hatred.
Reacting to the slaughter of American representatives in Libya, Secretary of State Clinton asserted, “There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.” That is true. Yet pivoting toward an emphasis on violence downplays the fact that the United States stands virtually alone on the world stage in permitting speech that deliberately provokes hatred along racial, ethnic, or religious lines.
Even Denmark, known for its commitment to wide open public discourse, has a longstanding law that forbids “threatening, insulting, or degrading” speech that targets people because of their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. Denmark declined to prosecute the journalists and illustrators whose 2005 portrayal of Muhammad led to major international protests and violence. But in the same breath, its Director of Public Prosecutions emphasised that it was simply untrue that religious groups had to be ready to put up with “insults, mockery, and ridicule”, as suggested by theJyllands-Posten editor.
As evidence of its standards, Denmark removed the broadcast license from a radio station whose announcer called for exterminating fanatical Muslims and pursued criminal charges against a politician who compared Muslims to a cancer on society that had to be cut out. Countries like Denmark have managed to maintain a firm commitment to freedom of expression while enforcing provisions against the most destructive forms of hate speech.
The United States itself has also restricted hate speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution seems categorical when it asserts, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This injunction only applied to state and local laws starting in the 1920s, however, and even after that point, local, state, and federal authorities often disagreed over what types of inflammatory expressions were subject to restriction. Most significantly, in its 1952 Beauharnais decision, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois state conviction of a man who publicly decried the “the aggressions… rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana of the negro”. It is not a given that the United States Constitution protects aggressive racist speech.
The free speech stance that Americans now take for granted was a product of the Civil Rights era. At that time, a progressive Supreme Court sided with blacks against Southern jurisdictions that attempted to use speech restrictive laws to curb protest.
Americans now find themselves entangled in a system that was the product of a particular era and that no longer necessarily reflects its citizens’ values. According to First Amendment Center surveys from 1997 through 2008, a majority of those polled believe that people should not be allowed to say things in public that might offend racial groups.
Freedom of speech is a core liberal democratic value. It must be upheld even when words cause offence. And no amount of violence should intimidate the United States into changing its laws. But it is vital to recognise that America is a dramatic outlier when it comes to the freedom to express inflammatory, hatemongering, racist speech. In this regard, we are different from virtually every other liberal democracy; we are different from what we used to be; and we are different from what many Americans want us to be.
It will take a bold Supreme Court to change the current interpretation of the First Amendment. But Supreme Courts respond to public pressure. It is worth having a national debate about whether we want to protect aggressive speech designed to exacerbate tensions across racial, ethnic, and religious lines. It turns out that preserving the freedom for these thoughts that we hate may not be an American value after all.
Taken from Bare Naked Islam.
(could this be what obama and the liberals want? packing the supremes with judges who will do away with the first amendment?)
This dentist brings his dog to work to help calm the nerves of the children who come in and it is literally the cutest thing in the whole world.
Two hospice care centers are struggling to make ends meet, and Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare are to blame.
Hospices—health care facilities for the terminally ill—along with other Medicare providers are facing Medicare pay cuts. Of the $716 billion in payment reductions, hospice care was hit by a $17 billion payment cut from 2013 to 2022.
Now, contrary to all of the misleading claims, this effect is already beginning.
San Diego Hospice recently laid off 260 workers, closed a 24-bed hospital, and has recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. San Diego Hospice’s financial condition is attributed mainly to reduced Medicare reimbursement, fewer patients, and a federal audit that hurt the center’s reputation.
Another provider, Delaware Hospice, had to lay off 52 workers, citing lower federal reimbursement as the cause. “The decision,” said CEO Susan Lloyd, “is a direct result of a consequential decline in census and the need to position the organization to meet additional changes and challenges that the hospice industry anticipates with health care reform.”
“There’s a bit of a squeeze going on,” said Theresa M. Forster, vice president for hospice policy and programs at the National Association for Home Care & Hospice. “Hospices have to do more with less, and you can see how that could take its toll over time.”
If other Part A providers (e.g., hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, hospices), like these hospice centers, can’t withstand Obamacare’s $700 billion worth of cuts, how will seniors be able to access these services?
Read on HERE.
Sex Week at University of Chicago
Obama’s ham-fisted nationalization of the student loan industry indicates that the federal government will take an ever larger role in financing the preposterously bloated expense of college. This should prevent institutions of higher learning from having to cut back on essential scholarship like Sex Week:
The prestigious University of Chicago is in the midst of hosting a comprehensive sex week that includes controversial events such as a course on sex education for kids, a play entitled “Genitalia the Musical,” and “Anal 101.”
According to the event’s official webpage, “Sex Ed for Kids” will be run by the Secular Alliance from 5-6pm Sunday and will offer college students advice on how to “teach kids” about sex and “learn yourself.”
“How do we talk about sex and its related concepts of choice, gender, and desire to our kindergarteners?” asks the event’s description posted on sexweekuchicago.com.
That’s right, kindergarteners.
Read on at Moonbattery.