At this point, it’s no secret that Chick-fil-A’s president, Dan Cathy, opposes same-sex marriage (he reiterated as much in a recent interview). While the mass furor over his and, thus, the company’s stance on gay marriage has subsided, it seems debate at the micro level wages on.

In the most recent drama to unfold, the student government at Elon University in Elon, North Carolina, decided to ban Chick-fil-A from its campus.

According to the Daily Mail, the ban, which was circulated by Spectrum, a gay-straight alliance, passed the Student Government Association at the university 35 to 11. While Darien Flowers, the president of the association, holds the power to veto the decision, it’s not clear if that action will take place. If, indeed, it is approved, Chick-fil-A will be asked to vacate from its current location in the school’s food court.

Read more here.

Will your child attend LGBT ‘mixer’ at school?

Parents are being advised to keep their children home from school on Oct. 30 if their local education officials are allowing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Mix It Up” day to be held on campus.

The advisory comes from the pro-family American Family Association, because of the pro-homosexual message that is expected to be delivered during the events.

According to the New York Times, the event encourages students to “hang out with someone they normally might not speak to.”

But the AFA said the underlying agenda for the SPLC is to promote homosexuality and that’s what would be the result should these events be imposed on students in schools.

“American Family Association is joining other family-oriented groups in urging parents to keep their children at home that day (Oct. 30) if their local school is sponsoring the ‘Mix It Up’ project,” the organization said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is using this project to bully-push its gay agenda, and at the same time, intimidate and silence students who have a biblical view of homosexuality.”

It noted that some schools have been cited as participating even without school officials’ permission, and parents likewise should review whether that circumstance applies to their district.

“Many school administrators were offended to learn that their school was listed as a ‘participating’ school on the SPLC website and ordered it removed immediately. In some cases, students or teachers independently signed the school up without approval, leaving principals and superintendents unprepared for phone calls from concerned parents,” AFA reported.

And at the Mail Online in the United Kingdom, promoters confirmed the program was intended to “break down social barriers and curb bullying.”

Read more here.

Obama campaign is done

With Election Day approaching next month and the second debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama slated for Tuesday night, radio host Rush Limbaugh believes the president’s campaign has completely run out of good ideas for re-election.

“I think the Obama campaign is done,” Limbaugh said this afternoon. “I think they’ve shot their wad. I don’t think they’ve got an October surprise.”

Limbaugh says Obama’s campaigners are now “recycling stuff.”

“That’s what this … attempt to tie Romney to Bain [Capital] is about. That’s what Big Bird’s about. They don’t have anything else,” he said. “I think it’s so much worse for the Obama campaign than anybody’s willing to admit anywhere.”

Limbaugh said he didn’t wish to sound overconfident, but, “I think Obama’s a has-been. If Obama hasn’t gotten [voters] by now, there’s nothing he can do. People are running away from Obama.”

He noted that supporters of Obama are hoping the president uses the debate in New York to focus on Romney’s remarks about 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay income tax.

The former Massachusetts governor had told wealthy donors in May he thinks 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims and entitled to government help.

“This 47 percent is like a lifeline,” Limbaugh said. “It’s almost like if you’re a Cowboys fan, you want the second-string quarterback in after yesterday. Or any team that had great expectations and high hopes and the starting quarterback just isn’t pulling it off. Get the second-stringer in there. It really indicates how little the regime has in their campaign arsenal if that represents so much.

Read more here.


During an interview last Friday with a Washington-based hip-hop radio station, First Lady Michelle Obama claimed that her husband’s policies are directly responsible for the “huge recovery” the U.S. is currently enjoying.

“Mrs. Obama, you know what, in your words, tell us what you think the state of the union is in right now?” asked radio host Pablo Sato.

“I mean, we are seeing right now that we are in the midst of a huge recovery. Right? Because of what this president has done,” the First Lady responded.

See more here.


Former New York mayor and Romney campaign surrogate Rudy Giuliani isn’t known to mince words, or take criticism lightly, as CNN’s Soledad O’Brien found out today.

Giuliani, who had been invited on the show to discuss the state of the race, and the aftermath of the Vice Presidential debate, found himself tangling with both another guest and with O’Brien herself as he attempted to explain the Romney campaign’s take on both issues.

“There’s plenty to criticize,” said Giuliani. “I mean, the cover-up of Benghazi is startling.”

Guest Richard Socarides tried to cut in, leading to the first of Giuliani’s sharp responses.

“Can I finish?,” he asked. “Can I finish my statement before you get all upset? I mean, the reality is he said we didn’t know they were asking for more security. Where the heck was he? I mean, they were demanding more security. They were begging for more security. Susan Rice goes on television four days later — I was on CNN with her that morning — and says it was a spontaneous demonstration. I knew it wasn’t. I knew it wasn’t; I’m not part of the administration. I knew it wasn’t the day after. And she had to know it wasn’t. They were saying it wasn’t. The National Security adviser said it was a terrorist plot.”

“He actually didn’t say that,” O’Brien hastily cut in. “The actual verbatim of what he said, he did not say it was something other than that. But it was mentioned, but he did not specifically say this was due to a movie.” She then offered to pull the transcripts to prove it.

Giuliani looked around incredulously. “Man, the defensive — Am I debating with the President’s campaign?” he chuckled. “I mean, the defense of the President is overwhelming.”

Read more here.


Most Americans know the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for his fiery sermons that were incessantly played by media during the 2008 campaign. You may recall his quotes about God damning America and his accusation that the U.S. government used HIV “as a means of genocide against people of color.” But the majority of Americans likely don’t know much about Wright’s personal background and — considering the media narrative and his refusal to speak with reporters — learning about his life and influences is somewhat challenging.

Some might contend that there’s no need to study Wright further — that the intense and seemingly anti-American rhetoric that was observed on television sets across America tells us all we need to know about one of the nation’s most controversial pastors. However, considering the elevated level of influence Wright had in President Barack Obama’s life, understanding the figure helps to shed further light on the president’s personal beliefs and ideals.

If one wants a base understanding about who Wright is, there’s always the Trinity United Church of Christ web site, however the resources gives very little when it comes to the grand picture that Wright’s life paints. The 71-year-old faith leader retired in early 2008 after a 36-year career at the church and it appears he retains very little attachment to the house of worship he once called home.

Read more here.

Mona Eltahawy vs. Free Speech

Author’s note: I sent this article to Matt Seaton of the Guardian in response to Mona Eltahawy’s defamatory piece there, justifying her vandalism of my ad in the New York subways: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” Seaton responded: “I don’t see how the article was defamatory, but in any case I would welcome it if you wanted to post in the discussion thread under Mona’s article. Alternatively, I think you have a well-followed blog; plus you did have your say in the subway ads in the first instance.”

So only one side gets a say in the Guardian. I am not surprised that it would be the side trying to justify the infringement of my freedom of speech.

In her Guardian piece justifying her vandalism of my ad in the New York subway and infringement of my freedom of speech, Mona Eltahawy claims that five days after her hateful and malicious act, “a man set fire to my brother’s local mosque.” Then she says of her vandalism: “I broke the law, yes. So what?” What would Eltahawy say if the person who set fire to the mosque said the same thing? While claiming to uphold the freedom of speech and rule of law, Eltahawy reveals her hypocrisy, and her contempt for both.

Eltahawy goes on about her “love of the first amendment,” while demonstrating her abysmal lack of understanding of what the freedom of speech is, how it works, and why it is important. How is destroying private property free speech? Vandalism is not freedom of speech, it’s barbarism; in a word, it’s savagery. If Mona Eltahawy wanted to exercise her freedom of speech, she could have bought her own advertisement and expressed herself any way she wished. Attacking people with toxic spray (and yes, she did spraypaint Pamela Hall, as the video shows, contrary to her claims in her piece), and destroying property is not freedom of expression or any legitimate form of protest.

But it isn’t just the First Amendment that she doesn’t get: clearly Mona Eltahawy’s grasp on the facts, and reality in general, is tenuous at best. “When Islamophobes in Europe,” she writes, “Geert Wilders and the English Defense League – unite to come to visit Geller and meet with mainstream Republican heavyweight such as Andrew Bolt and Newt Gingrich, you must understand it is for the purpose of vilifying all Muslims.” Andrew Bolt is a mainstream Republican heavyweight? The only Andrew Bolt I know of is a journalist in Australia; I haven’t met him.

Read more here.

Pakistan sends teen activist shot by Taliban to UK for care

Pakistan sent a 14-year-old activist who was shot and seriously wounded by the Taliban to the United Kingdom for treatment Monday, saying she would require prolonged care to fully recover from the physical and psychological effects of the attack.

The shooting of Malala Yousufzai and two of her classmates as they were returning home from school in Pakistan’s northwest on Oct. 9 has horrified people inside and outside the country. Tens of thousands rallied in Pakistan’s largest city on Sunday to support her.

She was shot by the Taliban for promoting girls’ education and criticizing the militant group.

Malala flew out of Pakistan on Monday morning in a specially-equipped air ambulance provided by the United Arab Emirates, said the Pakistani military, which has been treating the young girl at one of its hospitals.

A panel of doctors decided to send Malala to a center in the United Kingdom, “which has the capability to provide integrated care to children who have sustained severe injury,” said the military in a statement sent to reporters.

Malala, who was shot in the head, will need to repair damaged bones in her skull and will require intensive “neuro rehabilitation,” said the military. The decision to send the girl abroad was taken in consultation with her family, and the Pakistani government will pay for her treatment.

Pakistani military doctors earlier removed a bullet from Malala’s body and were able to stabilize her condition.

Read more here.

Anti-semitism in Chapel Hill

The closet anti-semites came out of the closet last Thursday night in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The small and less than quaint town of Chapel Hill is running the notorious anti-Israel ads on their city buses. I have submitted our pro-Israel ads in response to counter the vicious annihilationist message and have not heard back yet from the town.

Townspeople have written me, alerting me to a contentious town meeting, with anti-semites out in force arguing against accepting the AFDI ads, shouting down holocaust survivors and their children.It sounds like a Bund rally. Once the city of Chapel Hill permitted political ads on their buses (no matter how ugly ie the anti-Israel ads) they cannot pick and choose what message they will or won’t allow. Clearly, the town council and given Chapel Hill a black eye – allowing anti-Jewish messages to pollute their buses while refusing a counter message of freedom and support for a key ally.

Rest assured that the town will be sued if they dare post vile anti-Jewish posters without allowing a defense against such hateful propaganda. The “end US aid to Israel” implies that aid to israel is an impediment to peace, when in fact it is an impediment to the annihilation of Israel. It’s an ugly business, this hatred of the Jews, Chapel Hill.

Here is a letter from one of the villagers to the Mayor of Chapel Hill:

Dear Mayor Kleinschmdt and Council Members,

Thank you for running a very orderly meeting last night. After listening to the comments of the Council Members last evening and sleeping on them last night, I want to share this proposed letter or op/ed which I plan to submit to local media. There was a major omission that I did not realize until later, namely:

No Discussion of the Staff Decision: the “gorilla in the room” at the Council Meeting Last night at the Chapel Hill Council meeting on the Anti-Israel ads, we heard a very well informed group of people explain to the Town Council that the ads fronted by Reverend Davidson but really supported by an anti-Israel national conspiracy were more than merely controversial, but were, in fact, specifically contrary to the Council Guidance.
It is clear that the Council Members face a dilemma they wish had never happened. If they accept the threat and contention from other speakers and from the ACLU that the ads are protected by the first amendment even on a “non-public forum”, how can they refuse the Geller ads, which have already been submitted? These read: “In any war between a civilized man and a savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” This is a very angry ad that was specifically designed by Pamela Geller to respond to the subway posting of the very same ad in NY that Davidson has posted here. Her ad was designed to skirt the exceptions to free speech guarantees just as the Davidson ad is. After a well-funded court battle, her ad is running in NY. She beat NY on this issue and she will beat Chapel Hill. The comments made by several of the Council members indicated a desire to uphold the decision of the staff to accept the anti-Israel ad and to ultimately reject the Geller ad as “too hateful.” One Councilwoman (Donna Bell) immediately grasped the absurdity and the ultimate failure of this tactic.
But no one even raised the question of reviewing and possibly reversing the decision taken by the unnamed and hidden staff. A better-informed staff would have taken the trouble to look under the hood to see the real purpose of the ad, to attack and endanger a recognizable people just as surely as some see Geller attacking all Moslems. Note that the word “Moslem” does not appear in her ad, but instead “Jihad” which is a political group of terrorists, not a “people.”

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: