Is there a plan to destroy America?

Is there a plan to destroy America?


Former Governor Dick Lamm (D-CO) is still today waking up America to its planned demise.  “All great nations commit suicide”, he stated in 2003 and repeats that statement often.  Judge for yourself. The audio clip with Lamm’s voice articulating a “seven-point plan-to-destroy-America” can be found on this website: It does not take a scholar to recognize the simple strategy to fundamentally transform America using seven specific tactics. First and second tactics: turn America into a multi-lingual and multi-cultural nation, i.e. create a modern “tower of Babel” where nobody understands one another.  European heads of state (Merkel/Germany, Sarkozy/France, Cameron/UK, Cardinal Walter Kasper/Germany) have admitted (2010) that multi-culturalism has been a major failure, yet nothing has changed. Encouraging people to live according to the culture of their heritage and speak its language creates rivalries that may well result in civil war. Integration without assimilation destroys cohesion. Virtually all countries with 2 or more cultures and languages constantly face the threat of a break-up along cultural lines (Belgium, Spain etc). Remember Scotland almost voted itself out of the United Kingdom.

3) Redefine the meaning of words like “diversity”, i.e. celebrate our differences, not our common beliefs and principles. Diversity means dividing people into groups by culture and language. That is why they had to invent the oxymoron “unity in diversity”.  This is like fitting a round peg into a square hole. The original American motto was E PLURIBUS, UNUM, from many (cultures), one (culture) has been reinterpreted to mean that America is many cultures. No country can be more than one culture. None.

4) Keep minorities uneducated, for they will vote for “goodies” from their benefactors in office

5) Have foundations and private organizations fund these efforts to provide a comfortable welfare system that perpetuates itself and keeps them dependent on government.

6) Allow and even encourage dual citizenship so as to weaken loyalty to their adopted country, although the Oath of Allegiance signed by all new immigrant citizens clearly states that they commit to loyalty to the US exclusively. Activist “journalists” like Univision’s Jorge Ramos, brag about their dual citizenship and often vote in US elections and elections of their country of birth. Mexico’s President Zedillo publicly encouraged Mexicans in the US to “vote Mexico’s interests”. “ Of the 35.8 million people of Mexican descent in the U.S., 68 percent are native-born, and more than a quarter of those born in Mexico have become U.S. citizens”

7) Make it taboo to talk about anything except “diversity” as an ideal tool for social and other kinds of justice. Corporations are spending hundreds of millions to “teach” diversity to their managers, yet cannot define what “diversity” is. Do corporate CEOs really want to pick a decision from a diverse group of direct-reports or implement their own best judgment?  “Unity in Diversity” is a fantasy. Emphasizing our differences cannot possibly lead to “unity”.  Harvard Professor and friend of Obama, Robert Putnam got into trouble raising doubts about the usefulness of “diversity”, several years after his famous research into integration and assimilation (Bowling Alone, 2000). His book observed that integration has indeed been happening but without assimilation. We are a community during the week and on the job, but we go our separate ways on weekends. Why, because we have our own cultural preferences. Diversity divides; it does not unite people. Integration without assimilation destroys cohesion. Another professor got into trouble for speaking her (conservative) mind about affirmative action and race relations. Amy Wax (Penn State Law School) was “demoted” by not being allowed to teach a required first-year course because minority students might be offended by her contrarian public opinion. Academic Freedom and Freedom Of Speech on campus are mere historic relics.


Captive Minds and the Academic Chastity Belt

The sad state of Learning in America’s Colleges

Pablum In, Pablum out.

Captive minds protected by an academic chastity belt.  That is the impression that academics leave with the average American.  While they perfunctorily promote the principles of freedom-of-speech and academic-freedom, they are often in contravention of those principles. Just publish your own beliefs about the state of higher learning, and you will be admonished for going off the reservation.  Such was the case of Professors Amy Wax (U. of Philadelphia Law School) and Larry Alexander (U. of San Diego Law School) after their August 9, 2017 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. They had the audacity (or courage) to express their observations about the institution having long ago abandoned those principles in favor of one-opinion-fits-all. The resulting suppression or oppression of thought reminds us of the George Orwell novel “1984” where uniformity and conformity were sacrosanct.

The authors blame the “breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture” for the chaos on campus and Main Street.  Espousing “old” values such as gainful employment, hard work, patriotism, neighborliness, respect for authority, substance abuse avoidance etc. is not just frowned upon, but condemned. Instead of teaching responsibility, accountability and coping strategies, they teach victimhood for virtually all classes of people, except the white male. College administrators seem to go out of their way to guarantee the purity of their thinking with an academic chastity belt, removing any little adversity or challenge from their students ‘daily lives. They are protected in “safe” spaces away from “offending” thought and speech. This offensive speech is defined as hate speech and always linked to Conservative or Republican speech which is supposedly steeped in the evil known as capitalism. Capitalism is routinely vilified and blamed for all the ills in this world, though these ills are largely the result of socialist do-good policies (Disaster cities are all managed by Democrats).  What is that pabulum? Capitalism exploits the poor.

With precious few exceptions, these professionals seem to put their personal beliefs ahead of truth and critical thinking. This one-dimensional thinking is enforced through the grading system but also enforced physically in rallies that forcibly remove divergent speech with “muscle”.  Do not conservative speakers get pelted with objects on stage or never even make it to the stage to deliver their non-conforming message. Conservative articles seldom get published in newspapers for fear of upsetting their liberal readers. Furthermore, while promoting the holy grail of “diversity” in gender or ethnic identification, diversity of thought is strictly forbidden. To forestall any argument about the ideal of “diversity” which by definition divides people into classes, they devised an oxymoronic expression “unity in diversity”. Round peg into a square hole?

My own experience as an Adjunct Professor spans only 11 years, but provided ample proof of academic malfeasance to fill a book. Besides the distraction to learning caused by sports programs and “sports scholarships”, the injection of personal beliefs into the course material skews the students’ learning.  I was astonished to learn, for instance, that my specialty of cross-cultural management can have a right or left wing twist to it. Then, I was shocked by the conduct of a faculty-level book discussion group where I expected a semblance of academic freedom and freedom of thought, but I was wrong. I was virtually accused of racism for my habitually-skeptical approach to any new book, including one written by Ta-Nehisi Coates which I found to be a litany of complaints with which we are all sufficiently familiar. I inquired as to the follow-up work, preferably a work on solutions to the race problem, not a dwelling on the past that cannot be changed.  It was not to be.  All participants seemed to compete about ingratiating themselves to the black members in the room. One made sure that her kids had black dolls to play with; another actually married a black individual. It was the usual Sharpton-J.Jackson lecture of victimhood for Blacks. This book “review” was one more notch in the chastity belt, assuring the purity of racial thought among mono-chrome instructors.

More recently I commented on a professor friend’s Facebook page which raved against the NRA for causing school shootings. I wondered why we don’t ban cars since they kill more people annually than guns. I was immediately admonished for being so “uninformed” and that I should “be ashamed of myself” as an academic, but no counter argument was made, only the personal attack on me. In other words we have progressed to the “1984” status where everyone forcibly thinks the same way, like a mass of robots marching headlong into the abyss of academic nihilism.

Here is another example of group think. An after-hours on-campus conference compared native-born Blacks to immigrant Blacks. Research has been published (WSJ and others) showing that immigrant Blacks do better economically than native Blacks. This contrasts with findings in the Hispanic community that show the reverse. The highlight came when a recent immigrant from Jamaica made her comment to the effect that American-born Blacks seem to have a “sense of entitlement”, that they are owed something because of the past. The panel of black professors and students immediately white-washed the comment without even trying to formulate a counter argument.  Of course this commentary was not found in next day’s newspaper report.

I was flabbergasted that the newspaper which routinely published all the articles that I had submitted finally refused a particular one which questioned the assumption that the US is to practice multi-culturalism. I argued that indeed Americans come from many different cultures, but we all adopt the American culture and live accordingly, thereby providing cohesion as a nation.( The word “multi-culturalism”, like “democracy”, is not mentioned in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) The practice of allowing or even encouraging people to live according to the culture of their heritage is what creates division and strife. As we know from the studies conducted by Robert Putnam (Harvard), integration without assimilation lacks national cohesion. Liberalism has taken these key words to the absurd extreme by crafting the oxymoronic slogan “unity in diversity”. This is tantamount to promoting open-minded debates in an Orwellian closed-mind environment, or higher education for lower expectations, i.e. fitting a round peg into a square hole. The elaborate chastity-belt is assuring compliance.

March 1, 2018…. 1062 words

The Rebel of French Culture is dead: long live Johnny

The stage lights went dark on December 5, 2017, for a certain septuagenarian labeled “the greatest rock-star unknown outside France”. Johnny Hallyday on that day perhaps got his wish to come face to face with his mysterious Marie, to whom he dedicated a song of despair and hope on his 60th birthday. In the extraordinarily long funeral cortège on the Champs Elysées, a venue normally reserved for great statesmen a million French citizens, young and old, said goodbye to the French “King Of Rock & Roll”. The very familiar refrain from Marie could be heard along the somber route, while dozens of bands played this haunting melody which had become the fastest selling single ever in France. A magnificent tribute to his career, his tremendous charisma, his rebel-without-a-cause behavior in an otherwise well-defined national culture: “Oh Marie, if you only knew all the wrongs done to me, Oh Marie, if I could find peace in your bare arms; Oh Marie, I hope that in heaven we shall meet.”

None other than the President of France himself, Emmanuel Macron and former President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the dignitaries eulogizing Johnny. Even former Minister of French Culture, Jacques Lang, had words of praise for the non-traditional Frenchman. Street interviews revealed the presence of many traditionalists who reluctantly acknowledged that Johnny was not of “their” culture, but loved him anyway. “He transcends generations”, stated Macron.

Many more millions will be added to the 110 million albums sold over six decades. As a seventeen-year-old infatuated with two American idols, Elvis Presley and James Dean, he forged a splendid career against all cultural odds. His always-sold-out venues naturally included spectacular entrances, whether on a Harley Davidson or dropped from a helicopter and his trademark on-stage gyrations and a chaotic lifestyle, earned him the title of “the French Elvis”. And yet, his music has hardly caused a ripple in America or the UK. What is so different, of course, is the language, but also the content and meaning of his lyrics. His sound is a French interpretation of rock and roll, with lyrics often touching on the darker side of humanity, dealing with despair, hope and prospects of this wonderful dream ending, especially after his diagnosis of lung cancer. Such is the tone of many of his songs, especially SEUL (alone) and Quelques Cris, (A few cries). That his appeal in the English-speaking world is not great is baffling, although some Americans know him for his acting in movies like The Man From The Train. His detractors remind us that Johnny must be a foreigner (his father is Belgian and his mother is French), and that his fanbase is mostly from the provinces, not Paris, an unkind cultural put-down. However, he consistently filled the largest stadiums three nights in a row, a feat not often duplicated by British or American rock stars. Three months after his death, his records are still sold out, but If you listen by the stars tonight, you will surely hear Johnny having a rocking good time with his Marie

P.S. During his lifetime he was estranged from both parents. In death, he is estranged from two of his children as he left all of his US and European assets to his fourth wife (32 years his junior) and their two adopted Vietnamese children. MERCI JOHNNY

M-T-M: Three Presidents On The March

Macron – Trump – Macri: the trio of presidents that promises to save a weary world that is about to lose its Western ways. Emmanuel MACRON, barely 40 years old and youngest President of France since Napoleon. Donald TRUMP (70), President of America-First-Again, and Mauricio MACRI (58), President of Open-For-Business-Again Argentina. Though not obviously orchestrated, they seem to act with some harmony of purpose. While their political party affiliations have been of the flexible kind, their actions and intentions are not ideological but very clear: they spell a Machiavellian pragmatism. All three are clearing the swamp left by prior socialist administrations, doing away with restrictive regulations, loosening labor laws, inviting investors with lower tax rates and fairer regulations, encouraging job and company formation, talking tough on welfare and immigration (Macri mentioned a possible fence with Bolivia), revamping education for the 21st century. All have made money in the “free market”, perhaps the consequence of being born into moderately rich immigrant families. Macron’s parents were both doctors. Trump’s and Macri’s parents became rich in the real estate world and, in fact, did business together in NY and Buenos Aires. Macron became wealthy while working as an Investment Banker for the Rothschild Bank after a brief stint in the Inspectorate General of Finances of the Hollande administration. He was then appointed Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs where he was successful in getting business-friendly reforms passed.
Elite schooling shaped their thinking. All frequented prestigious schools: “Sciences Po” and “ENA” for Macron, “Wharton School of Finance”/U. of Pennsylvania for Trump, and Macri graduated from the “Pontifical Catholic University” of Argentina, and attended a few classes at Wharton. Politically, all are “mavericks”, outsiders, although Macri was twice elected Mayor of Buenos Aires after becoming well known as the chairman of the very popular Argentine soccer team Boca Juniors. Republicanism is on the march. Macron formed his own centrist party: LA REPUBLIQUE EN MARCHE (The Republic on the March).  Macri formed PRO i.e. PROPUESTA REPUBLICANA (Republican Plan party). They had to do this in order to be free to attack the stale traditional organizations and their wishful but failing policies. Trump did virtually the same thing by simply appropriating the Republican name and turning it into his own vehicle. Macron was not the favorite in the primaries, but handily beat the “extreme right” candidate, Marine Le Pen in a run-off. Le Pen argued for a FREXIT (French exit from the European Union), but  Macron argued the opposite, though his was not the popular view in France during the election cycle.
All married well. Trump and Macri are said to have married beauties, in fact, three each. Some in the press are wondering if Melania has “met her match” in elegant Juliana Awada, Mrs. Macri. While Trump married a much younger woman, Macron married a much older one, Brigitte, who was his drama teacher in High School.
Macron can be described as the most intellectual and erudite of the three. He studied and excelled in philosophy and piano, though his passion remains Public Finance.  Trump definitely is the “street-smart” operator whose unpolished language is understood by the popular masses. Macri’s popularity can be traced to his very successful management of a highly successful soccer team. He is rich but not arrogantly so, and is motivated to correct the grievous errors of  Argentina’s decades of Peronist mismanagement.
It is however not perfect harmony. Macron objects to Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris environmental agreement. Macri openly supported Hillary Clinton for President. There may well be more disagreement, but it all trends in favor of pragmatism, peace, and prosperity.

Macron wanted to make

Trump Meets With Argentine President Mauricio Macri in the Oval Office

Trump’s Alter Ego Speaks French

French President Emmanuel MACRON and US President Donald TRUMP could not be more different as political big shots, yet so similar. One highly educated in France’s elite schools (Science PO and ENA), the other obtained a Master’s in Economics from Wharton School of Finance (U of Pennsylvania). Macron is barely 40 years old, and married a much older woman (his HS teacher), while Trump, barely 70 years old, married several times and each time to a much younger woman. In person-to-person contact, their chemistry seems to be positive. They converse with ease using similar business language. Each got rich in the open market, one in investments, the other in real estate. Neither had ever been elected to any public office, though Macron did try a couple of times. In the end, he did get appointed to important government posts in two previous administrations. Though “outsider” Trump has been a member of two political parties in the US, plus a stint as an Independent, he chose the Conservative side of politics to run for president. Macron actually formed his own centrist party (En Marche), adding to the array of French parties, none of whom ever get more than 30% of the electorate in primaries. He is said to come from the Left, but “dazzles the Right”. Trump comes from everywhere and is home everywhere. Without a majority in the primaries, Macron landed in a run-off with Right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen who he beat in a landslide. Both Presidents have chosen pragmatism over ideology.

Macron loves public policy and making France “competitive again”, but dislikes Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.” Such an irony: France is known for its concern with “greatness”, as France was “great” under Napoleon and DeGaulle. For them, “greatness” is steeped in honor, duty, heritage, and love of homeland (French schools emphasize history). Greatness in Trump’s eyes is tall buildings, fat checking accounts, and large big-boy toys. True, Trump became a billionaire focusing on the “deals”. But, then, Macron is also rich, though only a millionaire. He earned his fortune while on the job at the Rothschild Investment Bank. This kind of luck makes even a socialist find a way to justify becoming rich. Macron, the ex-socialist, sounds American when he says that rich is not bad, we need not punish success, but we do want to help more people become rich (paraphrased). Therefore, reduced taxes make a lot of sense. All of this points to a convergence with Trump’s “capitalistic” thoughts, especially those involving private investment. Other areas where both presidents seem to move in parallel are found in energy policy (Macron wants nuclear), education, welfare, labor laws (Sunday store hours, hours worked), but not environmental practices. Note to reader: the French see no contradiction in working nuclear power plants while demanding a purified environment).

Armed with the legendary French astuteness, he disarmed his post-election competition by hiring the top guns from several rival parties for important government functions. The lure of an ambassadorship or cabinet post is stronger than money and ideology, on all continents. In fact, Macron also co-opted the economic message of his main rival party (Les Republicains) headed by Sarkozy, aka “Sarkozy the American”. Macron is in favor of a strong EU and wants to further tie the knot with Germany but on better terms. At times Macron refers to himself as the modern “Joan of Arc”, although that label fell on his arch-rival from the Right, Marine Le Pen. This pragmatic and young President holds positions found in Le Pen’s arsenal as well as in Trump’s, such as better immigration control, reduced burden on companies and jobs, jobs, jobs….homeland first…

Both presidents have many similar views, hold strong opinions, are hell-bound on executing on their respective plans. Macron approaches those issues with astuteness, subtlety, and elegance. Trump’s approach is that of a street fighter, using harsh if not insensitive language without much subtlety but with absolute self-confidence. Pragmatism is their common quality. Maybe this transatlantic magic spreads to other places. For instance, current President of Argentina, Mauricio MACRI who is shaking things up with market solutions down in Buenos Aires. More on him later…


Ideology Redefining Traditional Values

The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made a remarkably frank and honest statement in 2015 when, in response to a reporter’s question, he stated with a grin on his face: “We (politicians) all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we have done it”. Some politicians act out of expediency (go along to get along), others seem to really believe what they claim, perhaps only because they reside in an echo chamber and keep hearing the same message from colleagues, so it must be true. Of course, Liberals claim the Right is living in an echo chamber. The difference is that Conservatives are people of conviction via the path of discovery and analysis, whereas Liberals rarely know why they believe certain things, but they are sure that those beliefs are absolutely true. How often do Liberals respond to a Conservative explanation by saying that if only they knew as much about the topic as the Conservative does, they could make a better argument against the other side? How would they know without knowing what they don’t know? Speaking from my own experience, I changed my mind when I finally understood some important truths while I was still a believer in JFK Democracy. Yes, converts tend to have stronger and more well-founded opinions than others who are simply born into a particular belief system.

To forestall Conservatism, Liberalism had to redefine itself as Progressivism which then had to redefine the terms of our political discourse. Words like diversity no longer mean “dividing into categories”, but unifying diverse people. The problem arises when people realize the unnatural if not contradictory application of “diversity” which collided with the old truth that people of a feather flock together. This is the phenomenon that Professor Robert Putnam described in his book “Bowling Alone” wherein he explains that society has integrated neighborhoods with diverse people, but they did not assimilate nor socialize together. So, Progressives found this term “inclusion” as a fix, albeit a weak one, necessitating another oxymoronic notion found in the expression “unity in diversity”. Instead of promoting the brilliantly apt original motto for America E PLURIBUS, UNUM (from many cultures, into one American culture), they unraveled basic American cohesion, as evidenced by racial and ethnic strife everywhere. At least the European Heads of State had the courage to admit that their policies of “multi=culturalism” have failed. Europe is suffering the unintended consequences of those policies, as America has begun to suffer the same pain. You cannot expect diverse immigrants to become American when government encourages them to live their ancestral ways within our borders. It is the seed of America’s, and the West’s, demise..

Fairness is another one of those favorite concepts that Obama and his Progressive band of community organizers love. In response to press questions about the application of lower tax rates to actually improve the flow of taxes to the federal government, as happened during the Reagan years, the President responded by saying that it is a matter of fairness to keep the rates high. Where was that logic born? what is not fair about reducing tax rates and actually ending up with more tax dollars in the federal treasury. Not fair to whom? Fairness or spite?

Equality, Justice, and Equity are the holy grail for Progressive pundits. Like the other “words” they sound good, so they must be good. And of course, intent is what counts, not results. In the world of philosophy, the means justify the end, provided of course that the intended end is just if not pure. The US Constitution guarantees “equality before the law”. Progressives ignore that fundamental right and construct new equality and demand social justice, economic justice etc…. why? they simply want a new conversation with a new lexicon. Equity is something that most of us know as being earned over time, such as equity in a property, equity within a social group based on past performance or at least reputation. But in the Progressive world, like the monopoly game, we start out with a certain amount of equity, so as to equalize performance and results. What they do not realize or understand is the individuals thusly given “equity” will expect that assist throughout life, making them dependent on government or other people for their advancement. No incentive to improve one’s own efforts and results. Surely they will tell me that I “simply do not understand” the issue. It is not fair that some beings are born into poverty while others are born into wealth or talent. They want to change what God has created. Just like environmentalist Quijote taking on the biggest boldest windmills and changing the world’s temperature, although they do not know whether the temperature should go up or down.

The re-ordering of values does not stop there. The biggest Progressive machine in the world is the UN which has the ultimate windmill to tackle: human society, and underwritten to the extent of 75% by American taxpayers who do not want the UN to be giving orders to the United States. Its Agenda21 has detailed templates for all communities around the world to live as dictated by UN’s people-controlling standards in the social, environmental, economic and even cultural domains. Our international poster child in the Midwest is Dubuque, getting medals and recognition for its “sustainability” program. After 5 years of formal procedures, they still do not know what it is costing its taxpayers and what exactly the return on their tax dollars has been or will be…Sustainability, equality, equity, diversity, multiculturalism, climate change are all in the newly revised edition of the Progressive mind.


New Year’s Lament

I went and got a college education

To learn about truth in this nation

Patiently waiting for it to appear

As promised by Prof. Godot, oh so clear

“Truth exists, he said, I have seen its manifestations”

Yet, time after time, like ghost revelations

They appear and quickly disappear,

Perhaps truth comes this year…

Sanctuary America

What if all 50 states declared themselves sanctuary states?

The immigration lawyer hired by Montgomery County, Maryland, reportedly charges $575 per hour to steer the county government into a “sanctuary” status. Montgomery follows the trend started by cities like San Francisco and Chicago providing a “safe space” for illegal aliens who might be deported under the new administration managed by America’s deal-making president, Donald J. Trump. While the total city count is approaching 500, many counties and some states are planning to join this movement.

It is amazing that these governmental entities, which constantly petition the federal government for more and more funds, suddenly seem content with losing those federal dollars. The federal government could not have devised a better budget-reduction scheme than this. California alone receives about $350 Billion from the federal government annually. Could California survive without those dollars? Could virtually bankrupt Chicago and Illinois survive without federal money? Of course those cities and states that send more in taxes to Washington than they receive in federal payments might be delighted to stop receiving funds if they also then stop paying taxes to the federal government. It is obviously not as simple as making a political decision, but it does reflect a generalized “entitlement” mindset among political leaders.

Would this prospect not bring us back in part, to the origins of the United States when the foundational documents talked about a union between the “several states”? Have we not come too far from federalism? In fact, why do states send money to Washington only to receive part of that money, in some cases more than the original amount, back in our state?

I scratch my head and ask:  why do we have sanctuary cities in the first place? to protect illegal aliens from deportation or even prosecution by the entity whose constitutional job it is to enforce the country’s immigration laws? …to prevent family “break-ups”…. when the alien families broke themselves up when they left their homeland to come to the US? Finally, why do we have illegal aliens roaming the country freely against the wishes of a majority of citizens, some of whose wages have been depressed because of government-encouraged cheap foreign labor? Why has this problem not been fixed since it began after the demise of the Bracero (temporary labor permits) program over 50 years ago? Could it be that industry wants cheap labor and Democrats want cheap votes? One last question: if the 1920’s country-quota system was discriminatory because it favored Europeans (so said Ted Kennedy) then why is the current system not de facto discriminatory since it favors those who live close to America’s unprotected national border?

Why has America turned itself into a massive sanctuary for the failed state of Mexico and failing Central American states. Oh wait, America might as well be a “safe space” for everyone. Our college professors who seem to have “emotional incontinence” or “intellectual deprivation”, are leading the way in providing SAFE SPACE FOR …those in need of protection from diverse opinions.



Universities of Intolerance

The University of Notre Dame recently invited the noted conservative thinker and author of Coming Apart, Dr. Charles Murray, to address faculty and students on the hot topics of today. This was done in the tradition of freedom of speech, academic freedom,  balanced representation of critical issues. In the past, liberal speakers such as Harvard Professor Robert Putnam, who is a recognized authority on the subject of diversity (his book BOWLING ALONE was a best-seller), graced the ND auditorium in a welcoming atmosphere. Such a welcome was not extended to Dr. Murray, nor to other conservative speakers before him. Noisy and often violent protesters, organized presumably by on- and off-campus left-wing organizations who smell hell’s sulphur in conservative speech.

Just like the word “liberal” has been corrupted to no longer mean “liberty”, but its opposite, i.e. politically-correct, anti-tradition, even anti-history, so has the treasured university policy of guaranteeing “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” become an empty promise. It is useful, if not ironic to remember that conservatives are the original “classic liberals”, promoting individual freedom of thought, respect and tolerance. How things have changed. It is a well-known fact that conservative professors, at least in state-financed colleges,  although many private ones have joined this anti-intellectual movement, learn to keep their mouths shut, for fear of being ostracized. Only some long-tenured professors and non-career adjuncts seem to have the courage of their conviction and speak out on campus, putting their longevity in jeopardy. Liberal professors have no such concerns.

After retiring from three decades in global business activities, i became one of those adjuncts at a private university and naively expected vigorous discussions for and against the great topics of the moment. I learned quickly, however, that many, if not most, full-time faculty were indeed liberal, some ridiculing any conservative comment. I learned quickly that today’s faculty are ideologically driven in whatever subject they teach. I learned, for instance, that cultural anthropology can have a left or right “spin”. I cannot help but think back to my college experience of the 1960s when the great professors that I respected highly, did not betray a personal perspective. They presented all sides of an argument. Just like journalism has been corrupted to become advocacy reporting, so has the teaching profession. The result of course has been that students are no longer taught to analyze and argue differing perspectives, but are injected with a singular viewpoint, or set of talking-points which they naturally accept as the absolute truth, and regurgitate  instinctively. This, therefore, explains why they are so upset at conservative speech which threatens their intellectual glass foundation. Having been empowered by their liberal High School teachers, they feel empowered and will  challenge conservative professors, while robotically agreeing with liberal ones. Furthermore, so often students seem to take control of a university with weak management and dictate the terms of university reform. (students teaching the teachers?).We have witnessed campus upheavals where liberal professors act out a sort of “Stockholm Syndrome” and become part of the robotic behavior chaos (e.g. Mizzou). Most students don’t know the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, the intellectual statesman for the leftist cause, but they act in accordance with many of those so-effective rules: #5 ridicule is man’s best weapon against an enemy; others: repeat a lie frequently, it will stick; push the envelope of your adversary’s rules, they will become “broken”. Have you heard this one?…..accuse and never explain …. This new atmosphere is  totally opposite of what a college campus is supposed to breed: open, inquisitive and tolerant minds

Will Muslim Customs Overpower Western Customs?

Swiss law imposes a stiff fine on children who refuse to shake hands with their teachers … a century-old custom that Muslim immigrants see as an affront to their religion, which does not allow physical contact with the opposite sex unless it takes place within the family context. …. Two powerful “rights” are colliding: freedom to practice one’s religion (obey Laws of God) and the right of a nation to hold fast on its customs, values and principles (obey Laws of Man). Western principles of Separation of Church and State have not been challenged by a religion, as we believe in “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Switzerland has decided to hold on to its laws and traditions. Immigrants are expected to adapt to Swiss laws and customs, as Switzerland will not change its national character to suit an immigrant community.
Under the rubric of Multiculturalism and Freedom of Religion, Muslim immigrants seem to move on  to the subjugation of Western civilization. Just 5 years ago, the Heads of State of Germany, France and the UK were joined by the Catholic Archbishop of Germany declaring multi-cuturalism a resounding failure. Yet, this failed policy continues in Europe and America. Sooner or later the Muslim community will bring this reality into focus.