Sunday, October 31, 2010

University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes

Attacks on free speech in our universities and colleges in America have been going on for decades. Left-leaning deans and faculties have with impunity put in place the most severe restrictions of what students can and cannot say by creating blatant speech codes (written and unwritten); have turned students and professors alike into self-censors. These policies have gone unchecked by our politicians for far too long. It isn't that no one knows this is happening - our leaders know, alright. But, just as they have not the will to secure our borders, they have not the will to rein in the Leftist administrations on campuses throughout America. This has promoted a mind-numbing atmosphere in American academia.

We are literally fighting for our lives here.

Among the several student organizations fighting for free speech are The Chronicle of Higher Education, Students For Academic Freedom, and David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

David Horowitz, once a liberal himself, has been a tireless warrior in this battle. Read for accounts of this and other of his battles. Encouraging as this victory at UV is, I remain skeptical. The tenured Leftist professors are endemic within the universities, and it will take diligence and determined fights to rid our universities of these Marxist ideas. (see America's Moral Collapse here).

Still it is an encouraging sign, and should it become a trend, cannot but help free America from the shackles of tyranny.

University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes, Earning FIRE's 'Green Light' Rating
October 28, 2010

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., October 28, 2010—This week, the University of Virginia (UVa) confirmed that it had eliminated the last of its policies that unconstitutionally restricted the free speech of students and faculty members. While more than two-thirds of the nation's colleges maintain policies that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech, UVa is now a proud exception, having fully reformed four speech codes. UVa has now earned a coveted "green light" rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

"President Teresa Sullivan and her staff should be commended for making these simple but important changes to guarantee the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members at the University of Virginia," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Within three months of taking office, President Sullivan has overseen the transformation of UVa from a school that earned FIRE's worst 'red light' rating for restricting protected speech to our highest 'green light' rating. We hope that more colleges will follow UVa's sterling example and reform their codes to protect free speech."

American Renassiance has more on this.

One school at a time...

Monday, October 25, 2010

Gun Free Zone

I run this 1/2 Hour News Hour skit about once every six months. Just in case there's anyone who hasn't been paying attention.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The Right To Bear Arms Is Vital to Our Security

On October 16, 1991, George Jo Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time.

The first victim was local veterinarian Dr. Michael Griffith, who ran to the driver's side of the pickup truck to offer assistance after the truck came through the window. During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp had a handgun in her vehicle outside. Her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was shot and killed. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.

Susanne Hupp's Gripping Account recalls that day:

Responding to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush. Survivors and several of the numerous law enforcement officers who responded to the shooting continue to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder

The Killeen Luby's closed after the massacre and was reopened after clean-up and redesign of the front wall of the building was complete. The restaurant struggled throughout the following years and finally shut down operations on September 9, 2000. A Chinese-American buffet, Yank Sing, occupies the building.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Want To Support Our Troops?


"I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is." - Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Washington Examiner


Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement, talks with Taliban

By: Sara A. Carter

National Security Correspondent
October 19, 2010

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: Tthe restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.

"If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust.

In June, Gen. David Petraeus, who took command here after the self-inflicted demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Congress that he was weighing a major change with rules for engaging enemy fighters in Afghanistan. That has not yet happened, troops say. Soldiers and Marines continue to be held back by what they believe to be strict rules imposed by the government of President Hamid Karzai designed with one objective: limit Afghan civilian casualties.

"I don't think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we're going through," said Spc. Matthew "Silver" Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. "I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is."

To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.

"If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless," said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.

"Everyone dies for their own reasons but it's sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we're not going to see through."

Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.

From the front lines, the U.S. backing of the Karzai government, widely seen as riddled with corruption by the Afghans living in local villages, has given the Taliban a position of power in villages while undercutting U.S. moral authority.

Corrupt government officials have made "it impossible for us to trust anyone," said elder Sha Barar, from the village of Sha Joy. The people of that village and many others profess fear of the Taliban, and recount tales of brutality and wanton killings by the Taliban and their sympathizers. But they don't see the Karzai government as a positive force in their lives.

Karzai said that talks need to continue with the Taliban "at a fixed address and with a more open agenda to tell us how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan."

But U.S. troops and Marines interviewed during the past month in Afghanistan question what negotiations would really mean, to both them and the Afghan people. And they almost universally believe that negotiating would be a mistake before achieving decisive gains they believe are attainable once oppressive rules of engagement are relaxed.

"What does it mean if we give in to the Taliban? They are the enemy," Brooks said. "This place is going to be a safe haven for terrorists again. The government doesn't care about the sacrifices already made. As far as the mission goes, I want to see these kids go to school and have a future but not at the expense of my friends -- not anymore."

Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at



Friday, October 15, 2010


FINALLY...coming to a movie theater near you (opening in 500 movie theaters).

A movie by Ray Griggs

Monday, October 11, 2010

Essay: John Wall Divorce Agreement

I don't know who wrote this, or when, as it's been viral for awhile now. Whoever wrote the divorce agreement, I like the spirit of it. Incidentally, it contains the term, trickle up poverty, which just happens to be the name of Michael Savage's book - just released- Just buy the book at The Conservative Book Club, or

Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security


Essay:John Wall divorce agreement
From Conservapedia

Divorce agreement:

“Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.”


John J. Wall,
Law Student and an American

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Life Without Lawyers

When I am able, I try to find people, authors, speakers, etc. who address the same situations I find in need of attention. My focus is on America, and on the ways we are being (mis)used by the powers-that-be.

It is not often that I look to the NY Daily News for an unbiased picture of America. However, they printed an article which caught my eye, entitled Drowning in Law by Philip K Howard. I've posted the first page of the article. Click on the link above for the rest.

I also looked up Philip K Howard, and was led to a TED CONFERENCE, where Philip K. Howard was a keynote speaker. Here is the embedded talk. I think you'll like it.

Now to the NY Daily News article.

Drowning in Law: A flood of statutes, rules and regulations is killing the American spirit

By Philip K. Howard

Sunday, October 10th 2010

America is overwhelmed by the amount of law governing everyday decisions, and the constant threat of legal action by everyone from patients to employees.

Government is broken and the economy is gasping. The reason is the same: Americans no longer feel free to roll up their sleeves and make the choices needed to fix things. Governors come to office and find that 90% of the budget is pre-committed to entitlements and mandates enacted by politicians long dead. Teachers no longer have authority to maintain order in the classroom.

Legal mandates and entitlements have accumulated, like sediment in the harbor, until it is almost impossible for Americans to get anywhere without trudging through a treacherous legal swamp. Only big businesses, not small entrepreneurs, have the size (and legal staffs) to power through the legal sludge.

America will thrive only so long as Americans wake up in the morning believing they can succeed by their own efforts. Innovation, not cheap labor, is the economic engine of America. The net increase in jobs since 1980, according to research at the Kauffman Foundation, is attributed solely to newly-started businesses.

Unleashing these powerful human forces requires, however, an open field for individual opportunity - bounded by reliable legal structures that enforce contracts and other important social norms.

Instead, the land of opportunity is more like legal quicksand. Small business owners face legal challenges at every step. Municipalities requires multiple and often nonsensical forms to do business. Labor laws expose them to legal threats by any disgruntled employee. Mandates to provide costly employment benefits impose high hurdles to hiring new employees. Well-meaning but impossibly complex laws impose requirements to prevent consumer fraud, provide disability access, prevent hiring illegal immigrants, display warnings and notices and prevent scores of other potential evils. The tax code is incomprehensible.

All of this requires legal and other overhead - costing 50% more per employee for small businesses than big businesses.

The sheer volume of law suffocates innovative instincts, while distrust of lawsuits discourages ordinary human choices. Why take a chance on the eager young person applying for a job when, if it doesn't work out, you might get sued for discrimination? Why take the risk of expanding production in another state when that requires duplicating legal risks and overhead? Why bother to start a business at all?

Over the generations, the American spirit of individual opportunity has been manifested not only in new businesses, but in the civic and public life as well - in the culture of barn-raisings and boy scouts and cake sales. These deep roots of our common culture - which Tocqueville referred to as "self-interest, rightly understood" - have also atrophied before our eyes. Hardly any social interaction is free of legal the rest