After decades and decades of socialist domination of the American academy, finally an institution of higher learning – Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia – is offering an accredited class on modern conservatism, Politico reports.

The “Conservatism 101″ class is a joint project of the university’s Burke Society and the Leadership Institute, which hopes to use the seminar as a model for similar courses at other schools. Conservatism 101, the nonprofit group, promoting the effort, is seeking donations to help give students across America an opportunity to hear the other side of the story.

Given that conservatives comprise about 40 percent of the population, compared to the 20 percent of Americans who identify themselves as liberal, offering the course makes a lot sense.

“We believe that there’s an enormous amount of material that doesn’t get taught in classes, and most universities and students have a right to it,” said Wes Siler, executive director of Conservatism 101. “So rather than confronting professors and administrators, we’re trying to empower students to take it upon themselves to find conservative professors.”

According to The Daily Caller:

Siler hopes to get at least 20 similar classes started at colleges and universities across the country and has been talking with professors around the country with an interest in teaching the course at their university. He has his sights set on large state-affiliated schools such as the University of Texas and plans to get at least one course on conservatism at a school in each of the 50 states.

Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley intends to lecture in the UVA course.

“There are many different arguments out there,� Shirley said. “My compliments to UVA for deciding to move ahead with this because hopefully it will start a trend on other college campuses and universities … to open things up to something other than just a sort of parochial liberalism.�

–

Follow me on Twitter.

It looks like another victory against Islamofascism is underway.  UCLA made a daring move to temporarily freeze all admissions into its Islamic Studies program. As a result, several protests broke out on October 22^nd, 2010, at the UC campus by the Muslim Students Association in wake of the decision.

Most individuals assume that Islamic Studies is a respectable program that gives a fair account about the Middle East and Islam to contrast it to our highly Westernized, “Islamophobic” society. As a program greatly entrenched in teaching students that America and Israel are evil, Middle Eastern Studies and its ugly cousin Islamic Studies need to be brought into scope.  Lovely how our tax paying dollars are funding these anti-American projects.  Nevertheless, the decision to cease admissions into the Islamic Studies program is deeply rooted in the following sentiment:

The Academic Senate recommended the admissions freeze at the end of an external review that took place during the 2007-2008 school year…“In general, the Academic Senate will review programs to ensure that there are no problems that impact the quality of student learning,â€� Garrell said.

The Daily Bruin recounts that the outside review committee — consisting of UCLA and non-UCLA  faculty independent of the Academic Senate — felt compelled to investigate the program after students cited complaints with management and availability of resources.

“The review committee found that students felt that they were not well-taken care…the program was not managed well…â€�

Stanley Kurtz notes the sobering demise of Middle Eastern Studies as a sham to be reckoned with.

The story begins in the late 1940s, when Middle East “area studies” sprouted in American universities. The founders of this discipline made a pitch for government funding on grounds of national interest…To a degree, their pitch was self-interested. By breaking with the European model of learning based on the command of ancient and modern languages, and instead framing their object of study as a region of strategic value to the nation, apolitical scholars could contemplate fifteenth-century Islamic architecture and still do it on the government’s dime… The decline of Middle Eastern studies is a sobering story of intellectual failure–of the persistent inability of scholars to predict or explain real-world developments in the region of their supposed expertise.

Why waste money on an ineffective program that breeds contempt for our nation? These “educational” programs are largely sympathetic to anti-American views that have proven dismal and dangerous in America.

Editor’s Note: This popular post was first published on October 21 here.

A 70-year-old woman going by the pseudonym “Ether White� has claimed that she was sexually abused for years by her father and grandfather, and that the pair was paid by Dr. Alfred Kinsey as part of his bizarre sexual experiments. The findings from this “research,� which included producing charts on how long it took children as young as two months old to achieve orgasm with adult partners, became the foundation for how we view healthy sexuality in this country.

In other words, Kinsey used data from child rapists in his reports which are even now used to define what normal, healthy sexual behavior is.

Kinsey defenders have long attacked this assertion as the work of the “religious right� and anti-sex moralists, but even the Kinsey Institute itself has admitted that the Alfred Kinsey’s sources for information were child rapists.

Their own “debunking� of the charges Kinsey had children raped in the name of science still contains shocking admissions:

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children’s sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.

Kinsey produced charts showing the exact time it took for children to orgasm – and he relied on the reports of people raping children and the fanciful musings of adults to produce those charts? At the very least this should be considered the scientific fraud it is, but people still look to Kinsey’s child sex studies as authoritative.

And on the charges that his infamous child orgasm charts were the result of sexual experiments on children, the Kinsey Institute published this excerpt from the 1998 reprint of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female:

Having commented on the extent to which adults had recalled orgasmic experiences from their own childhoods, Kinsey pointed out that such recall might well be vague or inaccurate, particularly of an experience which the child may not have understood at the time. He was, therefore, especially interested in information obtained from those of his interviewees who had observed orgasms occurring in children.

Whereas he had some information of this kind from parents and teachers simply observing children, he obtained more from men who had been sexually involved with young boys and who had in the process observed their orgasms.

Teachers and parents just happened to walk in on children engaged in sexual activity, stopwatch in hand, and took notes on how long it took for children to reach orgasm? This debunking is harder to believe than the charges of child experimentation. But it gets worse:

Having therefore made it clear that he was referring to adults who had been involved in illegal sexual interactions with children; he went on to say, “nine of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which they have put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self-masturbation, or were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults.”

[...]

I decided to check on the sources of this information and found that, without any doubt, all of the information reported in Tables 31-34 came from the carefully documented records of one man. From 1917 until the time that Kinsey interviewed him in the mid-1940s, this man had kept notes on a vast array of sexual experiences, involving not only children but adults of both sexes.

Kinsey was clearly impressed by the systematic way he kept his records, and regarded them as of considerable scientific interest. Clearly, his description in the book of the source of this data was misleading, in that he implied that it had come from several men rather than one, although it is likely that information elsewhere in this chapter, on the descriptions of different types of orgasm, was obtained in part from some of these other nine men.

I do not know why Kinsey was unclear on this point; it was obviously not to conceal the origin of the information from criminal sexual involvement with children, because that was already quite clear. Maybe it was to conceal the single source, which otherwise might have attracted attention to this one man with possible demands for his identification (demands which have now occurred even though he is long dead).

This academic double speak, which is intended to debunk claims made by people like Esther White, literally means that not only did Kinsey use pedophiles for his research, but knew of one who was conducting horrible sexual experiments on children and protected him. Is the defense of Kinsey really that he didn’t experiment on children … he just used the research of his friend who did?

A 70-year-old woman going by the pseudonym “Ether White� has claimed that she was sexually abused for years by her father and grandfather, and that the pair was paid by Dr. Alfred Kinsey as part of his bizarre sexual experiments. The findings from this “research,� which included producing charts on how long it took children as young as two months old to achieve orgasm with adult partners, became the foundation for how we view healthy sexuality in this country.

In other words, Kinsey used data from child rapists in his reports which are even now used to define what normal, healthy sexual behavior is.

Kinsey defenders have long attacked this assertion as the work of the “religious right� and anti-sex moralists, but even the Kinsey Institute itself has admitted that the Alfred Kinsey’s sources for information were child rapists.

Their own “debunking� of the charges Kinsey had children raped in the name of science still contains shocking admissions:

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children’s sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.

Kinsey produced charts showing the exact time it took for children to orgasm – and he relied on the reports of people raping children and the fanciful musings of adults to produce those charts? At the very least this should be considered the scientific fraud it is, but people still look to Kinsey’s child sex studies as authoritative.

And on the charges that his infamous child orgasm charts were the result of sexual experiments on children, the Kinsey Institute published this excerpt from the 1998 reprint of Sexual Behavior in the Human Female:

Having commented on the extent to which adults had recalled orgasmic experiences from their own childhoods, Kinsey pointed out that such recall might well be vague or inaccurate, particularly of an experience which the child may not have understood at the time. He was, therefore, especially interested in information obtained from those of his interviewees who had observed orgasms occurring in children.

Whereas he had some information of this kind from parents and teachers simply observing children, he obtained more from men who had been sexually involved with young boys and who had in the process observed their orgasms.

Teachers and parents just happened to walk in on children engaged in sexual activity, stopwatch in hand, and took notes on how long it took for children to reach orgasm? This debunking is harder to believe than the charges of child experimentation. But it gets worse:

Having therefore made it clear that he was referring to adults who had been involved in illegal sexual interactions with children; he went on to say, “nine of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which they have put at our disposal; and from them we have secured information on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self-masturbation, or were observed in contacts with other boys or older adults.”

[...]

I decided to check on the sources of this information and found that, without any doubt, all of the information reported in Tables 31-34 came from the carefully documented records of one man. From 1917 until the time that Kinsey interviewed him in the mid-1940s, this man had kept notes on a vast array of sexual experiences, involving not only children but adults of both sexes.

Kinsey was clearly impressed by the systematic way he kept his records, and regarded them as of considerable scientific interest. Clearly, his description in the book of the source of this data was misleading, in that he implied that it had come from several men rather than one, although it is likely that information elsewhere in this chapter, on the descriptions of different types of orgasm, was obtained in part from some of these other nine men.

I do not know why Kinsey was unclear on this point; it was obviously not to conceal the origin of the information from criminal sexual involvement with children, because that was already quite clear. Maybe it was to conceal the single source, which otherwise might have attracted attention to this one man with possible demands for his identification (demands which have now occurred even though he is long dead).

This academic double speak, which is intended to debunk claims made by people like Esther White, literally means that not only did Kinsey use pedophiles for his research, but knew of one who was conducting horrible sexual experiments on children and protected him. Is the defense of Kinsey really that he didn’t experiment on children … he just used the research of his friend who did?

I knew that I wouldn’t have to look very far to find a picture of infamous artist and Stanford Professor, Enrique Chagoya, in a black turtle neck. All pretentious artists have one.

The ones who use blasphemous religious images and sex to add street cred to their “work” often have more than one. Chagoya’s offensive work depicting Jesus Christ engaged in a homosexual act WAS on display at the Loveland Museum in my home state of Colorado- until yesterday. That is until a truck driving, Jesus loving, bad-ass woman with a crow bar smashed through pretense and plexiglass and ripped Chagoya’s 5 cent art, (the 5 cents is for the paper) to shreds.

The women who committed this crime, 56 year old Kathleen Folden, is now facing felony charges for the crime. While she did illegally destroy the property of the Loveland Museum, funded by tax-payers, I think that the real criminal act that should be prosecuted was committed by the museum. The “art” in question was pornographic in its content, and was placed in an area where it was viewed by unsuspecting children.

I am issuing a call to the parents of any child traumatized by Chagoya’s pornographic work to sue the museum. Just because the pornography was produced by a self-proclaimed artist, it should not be given a free pass from decency laws. If a non-artist were to rip a page out of  ”Hustler” magazine and show it to children, he/she would be arrested and prosecuted as a sex offender. It is time to point out that the Emperor has no clothes and end the loophole labels of “art” and “free speech” that allow pornography and blasphemy to reach our children.

The era of government funded pornography and blasphemy in the guise of art needs to come to an end. Artists have become pigs at the trough when it comes to our money. We are paying to have our aesthetics and religious beliefs mocked by those who think that they are smarter and cooler than not only us, but God. Perhaps a new definition for art should be written: art: a creation from human hands willingly purchased by a non government entity and seen by those who choose to do so.

As for the criminal mastermind, Kathleen Folden, I think that when she gets out of jail she could have promising new career as an art critic. I for one will be donating to her legal defense fund.

It’s sad enough children no longer have proper childhoods — replete with mommies and daddies and safe, fun-filled neighborhoods — now they must contend with being labeled racists.

It’s shocking, but true. According to Daily Mail, more than a quarter of a million children have been labeled racists since schools in the UK have been made to spy on children as young as three by the Race Relations Act 2000.

If anyone wonders what has really gone wrong with education these past 3o years (and the recent attention on the new film “Waiting for Superman” proves people are indeed wondering) the UK story is living proof. Consider for a moment what education is supposed to be about: reading, writing, and arithmetic. For preschoolers, it’s about learning how to share, wait your turn, and take direction — not to mention having some good old-fashioned fun.

Yet how can any of this be accomplished when social engineering is the number-one goal of modern education?

That reality has hit hard for British schoolchildren. The Race Relations Act compelled 43,000 public authorities, including schools and churches, to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language. They can even report racism even if the alleged ‘victim’ was not offended or if the child does not understand what they were saying. (That’s the Left’s premier tactic: get ‘em while they’re young.)

“Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave,” writes Munira Murza, senior adviser to London Mayor Boris Johnson, in Prospect magazine.

According to civil liberties group, the Manifesto Club, 280,00 alleged incidents have been reported between 2002-2009. When asked whether this new “heightened form of awareness” is helpful in combating racism, Mirza says no. On the contrary, it “creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety.”

Having watched both Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor� Rally and its counterpart, “One Nation Working Together,� I am not surprised that organized student groups chose to align themselves with communists in the latter. What makes this rather terrifying is that groups like the United States Student Association (U.S.S.A.) openly propagate communist and socialist agendas to implement “education reform.� Do not be fooled by this cause, as student fees aimlessly put into these “humanitarian� groups breed contempt for American ideals.

The U.S. Student Association and its henchwoman Lindsay McCluskey appear dedicated to reforming education. “Organizing and fighting for college access and college affordabilityâ€� sounds like a beautiful idea. Despite its perceived message, the U.S.S.A. and similar groups propagate  hidden agendas that advance “social” and “economic” justice–offspring of socialism and communism:

The student members of the United States Student Association work together with a vision for a just society in which generations of representative leaders understand their power and engage and empower diverse communities to create social change…Today, college students face a multitude of barriers.  The average student borrower graduates nearly $25,000 in debt.  65,000 undocumented students are financially barred from a higher education because of archaic and nonsensical immigration laws.

Frankly, all of us college students are disgruntled with paying high fees to attend universities. Yet, aligning one’s interests with communists and their failed belief system is not going to yield results. Also, why must education be an entitlement for illegal aliens who sulk off of taxpaying dollars? I guess intellectual diversity is oppressive and hard work is too laborious. Boy, those communists sure know how to solve all of the world’s problems!

The U.S.S.A.’s agenda further confirms the notion that “social justice” actually means communism:

Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That’s what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: ‘social justice.’ They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy.

Communism was a failed system that my family endured and fortunately escaped. Millions of people suffered and ultimately perished. Freedoms were limited; progress was nonexistent. If groups like the U.S. Students Association continue to embrace communist ideas and go unnoticed, expect the United Socialist States of America to follow suit.

This popular post was first published on September 27 here.

This past weekend, a throng—nay, a large crowd of Harvard students publicly taunted, shamed, and stalked the venerable liberal intellectual Martin Peretz. Like the jihadists who distribute videos of their beheadings, the protesters also released their mini “Aktion� on YouTube. They call it: “Party for Marty.�

These students decided to rain on “Marty’s� parade, ruin it for him on the day Harvard was honoring him. The video shows students holding up signs presumably with Peretz’s own (but out-of-context) words. It is accompanied by Lesley Gore’s girlish voice singing the 1963 popular song: “It’s My Party and I’ll Cry if I Want To.� The students are smiling, enjoying themselves, enjoying what they hope is Peretz’s enormous discomfort.

The event was to mark the fiftieth anniversary of a Social Studies program. Harvard alumni had raised additional funding for this program in Peretz’s honor.  Students protested what they believe Professor Peretz wrote, thinks, is—or perhaps they were also protesting Harvard for daring to honor him.

At the end of the day, Harvard allowed Peretz to speak—but only briefly. Very briefly. Harvard still honored him. Speakers included the president of Harvard, various alumni of the Social Studies program, the president of Penn, as well as various social scientists and students.

Peretz was, essentially, silenced. But that was not enough. The righteous, self-satisfied protestors made it a point to hunt Peretz down as he tried to exit quietly, with some dignity, and mocked him continuously as they accompanied him on his long walk through Harvard Yard to his car; they also held the “offending words� posters.

Dr. Martin Peretz? Peretz is a staunch (but somewhat disappointed) Democrat—yes, he supported President Obama, and he is a rabidly old-fashioned liberal, a philanthropist, and the long-time editor-in-chief of The New Republic. Peretz was a professor at Harvard. Peretz is also the descendant of the great Yiddish writer I.L. Peretz and has funded a Chair in Yiddish Literature at Harvard which is currently held by the distinguished scholar, Ruth Wisse.

What crime, what sin, which particular Thought Crime did Dr. Martin Peretz commit?

I started this series to expose readers to the true face of school textbooks; to show them what’s really being taught to their children and to confirm that maybe it’s not so nice and dandy after all.

Last week, the Texas State Board of Education couldn’t have given me a better opportunity to do just that.

On September the 24th, the board came out with a resolution that it says exposes numerous examples of “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias” in Texas’ social studies textbooks.

According to the resolution, my textbook, World History: Patterns of Interaction, isn’t exactly an innocent party.

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), in its resolution, cites the content of three history textbooks to make its case, one of the three being mine. According to the SBOE, my textbook:

• In one instance, [devotes] 120 student text lines to Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 248 (more than twice as many) to those of Islam; and [dwells] for 27 student text lines on Crusaders’ massacre of Muslims at Jerusalem in 1099 yet [censors] Muslims’ massacres of Christians there in 1244 and at Antioch in 1268, implying that Christian brutality and Muslim loss of life are significant but Islamic cruelty and Christian deaths are not (see documentation in Appendix I-A);

Furthermore, at the end of the resolution, it states:

…Social Studies submissions…offend Texas law with…treatment of the world’s major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and/or by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others.

On the morning of September 24th, Fox and Friends aired a segment on this very story. It is worth noting that during that segment, a graphic appeared on the screen that displayed the following text:

“WORLD HISTORY: PATTERNS OF INTERACTION,” CITED | GIVES SPECIAL “SUBSECTIONS” TO “BENEFITS OF ISLAM”

The case against the alleged religious bias in history textbooks, if accurate, could raise damning implications; implications that may not only deal with the content of textbooks in Texas, but in the entire nation.

To make an informed decision on the implications of this case, readers require the answer to one all-encompassing question: Is this true?

The answer to this question requires the factual evaluation of the SBOE’s two claims; that:

• There is a “significant inequality” in the textbook’s coverage, space-wise or otherwise, of the world’s major religious groups, and
• The textbook “demonizes or lionizes” one religion over another or others.

Normally, this kind of in-depth truth-seeking would require readers to do their own homework, find the books themselves, and then spend extended periods of time sifting through texts they are unfamiliar with all for the purpose of coming to a one-worded answer to a simple question.

It’s a good thing that you don’t have to.

Following the suspension of the University of California—Irvine’s Muslim Student Union this past June, members of the MSU are bitter about the university’s decision. I reported on NewsReal Blog back in June  about the suspension as it was a milestone in suppressing their antics. Obviously, their reaction to the decision has only prompted their hate and schemes more. Do not buy into their lie of wanting free speech, as they wish to deny it to their opponents.

A writer for New University—UC-Irvine’s paper—lamented how sad it was that the Muslim Student Union’s presence was sorely missed during Welcome Week festivities. This girl—including other fanatics—failed to register in their brains that the Muslim Student Union breached university rules when interrupting Michael Oren’s speech in February. UC-Irvine’s administration stressed civility and respect at the event—standard protocol expected when speakers come to campus to engage in dialogue. Let this be known: the Muslim Student Union’s cries of having their free speech “deprived of them� is hypocritical, as they heckled Oren by showing their continual efforts to suppress the speech of pro-Israel views.

The suspension of the MSU for the duration of the school year, including a two-year period of probation, is obviously “unjust� for this group according to Madiha Shahabuddin. She points out:

Or is it that this apparent trend of the university shutting down student voices and actions is somehow here to stay?

Since when are other Muslim Student groups on universities being shut down on a routine basis? The UC-Irvine MSU’s suspension is the only action of its kind in existence! The only groups that could justify their voices being shut down are conservative and Republican organizations.

An event or protest in which a few individuals take part is not reason enough to suspend an entire group on which so many Muslims on campus rely for their social, spiritual and humanitarian needs.

When a group fails to respect the wishes laid out by administrative officials—regardless of the number of people involved— association will be noted and collective punishment will result. Universities ruthlessly punish right-leaning groups in high frequency compared to any radical Muslim group. You can thank the leftist agenda at universities for this endless persecution of conservatives on campus.

The MSU is not an honest group, as it disguises its anti-American efforts as free speech and derides those “impairing” them.