Faisal Mohammed, an 18-year-old male University of California Merced student stabbed four people with a large hunting knife on the campus Wednesday morning before he was shot and killed by university police, authorities said.

A construction worker who ran into the California university classroom to break up what he thought was a fight is being hailed as a hero for preventing a student armed with a hunting knife from possibly killing his intended target.

Byron Price, 31, was working on remodeling a waiting room at the University of California, Merced campus when he heard a commotion Wednesday and rushed to check on it.

The violence left Price and three others badly injured, but all are expected to survive. The assailant, described as a college student in his 20s, was shot and killed by campus police as he fled the scene.

Authorities are investigating a motive. Warnke said the knife blade was eight to 10 inches long.

Incidents of campus violence are becoming rampant. Stabbings involving multiple victims on college campuses have not raised as much alarm as mass shootings, although several U.S. colleges have been the site of violent attacks involving bladed weapons.

A student at Morgan State University in Maryland was charged in March with slashing two other students with a pocket knife outside a campus dining hall. In 2013, a 20-year-old student at a Texas community college wounded at least 14 people during a building-to-building attack.

Speaking from the oval office, a visibly shaken and obviously disturbed President Obama decried the escalating violence with knives in the nation as “public enemy number one,” adding that “We should not rest until we’ve rounded up every sharp blade in this nation and melted it down into a spoon.”

Amen, Mr. President. Amen.

PUBLIUS ;~}

Citizens of Houston overwhelmingly voted down a controversial measure that would have created legal protections in 15 categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

For months, opponents waged a war on the so-called “bathroom ordinance” that would allow transgender individuals use the bathroom of their choice. On Tuesday, their work paid off, with more than 60 percent of voters rejecting the measure.

“We are very pleased, obviously, with the incredible results,” said Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, a group that’s been fighting against the ordinance since 2014.

“From the very beginning, this really was our position that this was not a good fit for Houston—this was not something that was consistent with what the the people [wanted]. It took eight months to get here and half a million dollars in legal fees—it was a very expensive campaign—but we are very pleased with the outcome.”

In a joint statement to press, supporters of the legislation, including the Houston Unites campaign, the ACLU of Texas and the Human Rights Campaign, said in light of Tuesday’s results, they won’t back down from the fight.

“We’ve learned some important lessons,” the statement said. “We have to continue sharing our stories so that more Houstonians know what HERO is really about and aren’t susceptible to the ugliest of smear campaigns run by the opposition.”

The ordinance, named the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), originally passed 11-6 last year in the Houston City Council, but opponents forced the measure to a public vote by obtaining 55,000 signatures, well beyond the 17,269 needed to force a referendum.

Yet, the city claimed that only 15,000 of the signatures they obtained were valid and refused to place the issue on the ballot.

That’s when Welch and his fellow pastors fought back, filing a lawsuit against the city of Houston.

As the dispute played out, Welch and four other local pastors had their sermons and other communications subpoenaed by the city’s attorney.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who first introduced HERO, eventually withdrew the subpoena. This summer, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the city must either bring the initiative to a vote or withdraw it completely.

HERO applies to city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment and housing.

In addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, the ordinance protects 13 other classes including sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, genetic information, and pregnancy.

The drawn-out dispute pit Houston at the center of the latest battle between LGBT and religious liberty advocates.

Supporters of the ordinance call it “sensible” and say it’s a good policy for Houston businesses. More than 60 local companies came out in support of the measure, along with seven big businesses.

HERO advocates also accused opponents of running a “fearmongering” campaign by arguing the measure could allow sexual predators into women’s restrooms.

“Houston residents should not succumb to that ugly fearmongering,” wrote the New York Times editorial board. “Those who vote ‘yes’ to retaining the ordinance will be affirming the city’s most valuable asset: its longstanding culture of inclusiveness.”

But opponents of HERO say they have legitimate concerns about its implications for bathrooms, locker-rooms and other sex-specific facilities.

“The proposed law defines gender identity as ‘innate identification, appearance, expression, or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not correspond to the individual’s body or gender assigned at birth,’” wrote Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of the new book “Truth Overruled.” “No legal change of name or gender, and no surgery or hormone treatment is required to identity as transgender—simply one’s self-professed and chosen identity, appearance, mannerisms, or behavior.”

Furthermore, critics cite concerns about HERO threatening the freedom of citizens to carry out their religious or moral beliefs about marriage and human biology.

At the polls, more than 60 percent of voters rejected the measure.

“Thankfully, it was a strong turnout and the results were very decisive,” Welch said.

By Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness

As we wrote in our article NEA Report Card: F, the education problem has been growing in America for decades, as the costs of educating our children skyrocket and students are churned out of the public education system and universities with less and less actual education.

Man-on-the-street interviews reveal that college age Americans have little or no understanding of American history or the political process. They appear to be focused on leftist political issues, like man-made global warming, and if any of them question their leftist professors or the nonsense they spew in classrooms, they are automatically flunked from the course.

A decades-long growing battle between liberals and conservatives over education is culminating in conservative calls to either get the government and unions out of education altogether, or to entirely overhaul the system.

Of course, Democrat Party presidential candidates are upping the ante in votes-for-handouts campaigning, offering free college educations to all young Americans in exchange for making them president. None of the Democrats inform the electorate who will pay for all of that free education in the face of a $20 trillion debt, and it fails to solve the problem of churning armies of knuckleheads out of our universities.

The major problems with the current system are:

1) costs have artificially skyrocketed and the taxpayer is left holding the bag for much of it while students incur decades of debt; and

2) Anti-American leftists dominate the university system and classrooms, leaving indoctrinated students with little usable education and mush for brains.

The Federalist Press editors propose a new higher education option, patterned somewhat after the current online degree or CLEP and DANTES higher education programs being utilized by a handful of students.

In this age of digital access it is feasible to launch a program that provides students with online classes, with lectures by top experts in every field and stunning graphics, videos and demonstrations of the principles and concepts being taught. A basic 2 year core curriculum will ensure that all students receive across-the-board instruction in math, science, English, history, American politics, etc. Then specialization will occur in 3^rd and 4^th year online courses. This is essentially how colleges and universities are supposed to offer classes now, but they have strayed far from their mandate, with tragic results.

Third and fourth year specialization courses in the government-offered online university should emphasize productive degree programs initially; science, engineering, language, history, chemistry, education, pre-medicine, pre-law, etc., with some liberal arts programs being added as the system is more fully developed to accommodate their greater need for interactivity.

To help reduce cheating on exams, a major problem in the current system as well, testing centers should be established for this online university system with certified proctors to administer standardized, computerized tests.

Students can take online courses at their own pace, and show up to take the exams at proctored centers as soon as they have completed each course.

Costs, which will be only a fraction of the current $500 billion, can be shared by students and the taxpayers. Students can pay a low flat fee for each course, and the federal government can dramatically cut its higher education budget and finance the remaining cost of the online university system.

This will replace the current Student Loan program, which essentially supports a bloated, ineffective higher education system that is little more than a propaganda arm of the global leftist movement. It will also eliminate the current hurdle of student debt, hanged around the neck of most graduating students in America.

This proposal will provide higher education for anyone who wants it, and anyone who is self-motivated enough to do the work. It doesn’t get any easier, cheaper or better than this.

PUBLIUS

BREAKING: House Republicans are huddling on Capitol Hill to nominate the next speaker, as Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy grapples with an 11th-hour challenge to his bid to succeed John Boehner — after a conservative bloc threw their support elsewhere.

In a stunning turn of events, McCarthy just announced he will withdraw from the race for House Speaker.

The story is developing.

PUBLIUS

In an article in Politico, Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, point out a fact that should greatly concern all Americans: that the presence of millions of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, could tilt the presidential election toward the Democrat Party and decide the election in favor of the eventual Democratic nominee.

Voter Fraud Happens

As I have outlined in many different articles and a recent book on voter fraud, illegal voting by noncitizens is a growing problem. Most election officials are not taking the steps necessary to detect or stop it, and many prosecutors including the current Justice Department seem reluctant to prosecute it.

A study released in 2014 by three professors at Old Dominion and George Mason Universities in Virginia concluded that 6.4 percent of the noncitizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome of various contests in a number of states.

That includes the winner of North Carolina’s electoral votes, which went to Barack Obama by a relatively small margin, since a majority of foreign-born residents favor the Democratic Party. That may also be why Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the governor of a battleground state, vetoed a bill that would have required jury commissioners to provide local election officials with the names of individuals called for jury duty from the state’s voter registration list who were excused for not being U.S. citizens.

Some States Have Congressional Districts They Shouldn’t Have

But as Rozel and Goldman accurately point out, noncitizens may be changing the outcome of presidential elections even without voting illegally. This is related to the problem of some states having more representatives in Congress than they should, and others being shortchanged unfairly due to the huge—and growing—population of illegal aliens whom the Obama administration and its political allies want to provide permanent amnesty.

All of this stems from the way apportionment is conducted. There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Under Sec. 2 of Article I of the Constitution and Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, every ten years, after the “Enumeration” (the Census), we redistribute those 435 seats based on the “whole number of persons in each State.” In other words, the number of members of the House that each state gets is based on the total population of each state relative to the total population of the U.S., which includes noncitizens. Thus, the upwards of 12 million illegal aliens present in the U.S., combined with other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House.

Various studies have been done on the effects of this distortion, including by Leonard Steinhorn of American University and scholars at Texas A&M University and the Center for Immigration Studies. If you calculate the results based on the latest Census numbers, according to Steinhorn, ten states each are short a congressional seat that they would otherwise have if apportionment were based on citizen population: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

States with large numbers of illegal aliens and other noncitizens have congressional seats they otherwise would not have (and should not be entitled to): California (five seats), Florida (one seat), New York (one seat), Texas (two seats), and Washington State (one seat).

This is fundamentally unfair, because these states are benefiting from illegal conduct and gaining political representation for individuals who have no entitlement to such representation or to even be present in the country.

How Noncitizens Affect The Electoral College

This also twists our presidential election process. Under our Electoral College system as laid out in Article II, Sec. 1, the number of electors that each state receives is a combination of its two senators and the number of representatives it has in the House (the one exception is the District of Columbia, which gets three votes courtesy of the Twenty-Third Amendment). Thus, states like California have more Electoral College votes than they should, while other states like Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are shorted in their Electoral College votes.

As Goldman and Rozell say, this “math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College.” When you look at the makeup of the states that have lost/gained Electoral College votes and what would happen if apportionment were based on citizen population, then:

[T]hree of the states that would gain electoral votes are Democratic. The remaining seven are fairly put in the GOP column. Combining the two halves of the citizens-only population reapportionment, states likely in the Democratic column suffer a net loss of four electoral votes. Conversely the must-win Republican leaning states total a net gain of four electoral votes. These are the four electoral votes statistically cast by noncitizens.

Four electoral votes may seem minimal, but we have had a number of presidential elections in our history decided by a very small margin, such as the 1876 race between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, which was decided by one electoral vote: 185 to 184. The 2000 race was decided by only a slightly higher margin: Bush (271) vs. Gore (266).

Goldman and Rozell point out that Romney won 24 states in 2012. Three battleground states important to Obama’s victory were Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, which have 60 combined electoral votes. If Romney had won these states, too, he would still have had only 266 electoral votes, four short of the 270 needed to win. But according to Goldman and Rozell, if the Electoral College were apportioned according to citizens, then if Romney had won Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, the electoral votes of those states combined with the other 24 Romney won would have given him the 270 votes needed to be president.

The misallocation of electoral votes in apportionment gives Democrats a clear advantage. “This is why counting illegal immigrants and noncitizens significantly reduces the chances of the GOP winning the presidency.”

No one doubts that we should count noncitizens, whether they are here legally or illegally, in the Census, so that we have an accurate count of the population of the U.S. for a myriad of sound public policy reasons. But as Goldman and Rozell say, there is no “persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a crucial role in picking a president.”

It is a felony under federal law for a noncitizen to vote in our elections because voting is a right given only to American citizens. It is a precious right that must be earned by becoming a citizen. Giving aliens, particularly those whose first act was to break our laws to illegally enter the country, political power in Congress and allowing them to help choose our president strike at the very heart of our republic and what it means to be an American.

By Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky

An Ivy League professor said that Ben Carson should win the “coon of the year” after the 2016 hopeful supported allowing Confederate flags at NASCAR events.

In a tweet sent out last Tuesday, University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler, wrote “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award …” when responding to Daily Beast editor-at-large Goldie Taylor’s tweet containing a link to a Sports Illustrated article on the issue.

“Swastikas are a symbol of hate for some people too … and yet they still exist in our museums and places like that,” Carson said during an event with Richard Petty in North Carolina last Monday. “If it’s a majority of people in that area who want it to fly, I certainly wouldn’t take it down.”

Obviously, Butler disagreed with the famed neurosurgeon, who currently sits second in the Washington Examiner‘s latest power ranking, behind only Donald Trump.

Butler deleted the tweet after she was contacted by Campus Reform for comment. In addition, Butler has a protected account on the social network, meaning she would have to accept a request from a user to follow her account.

Prof. Justin McDaniel, who chairs of the religious studies program at UPenn, called Butler a “valued colleague and faculty member,” but did not offer any direct comment on the tweet itself.

“Professor Butler is on sabbatical and not regularly on campus as she is writing a book on African-American religious history,” McDaniel told the Examiner via email Tuesday. “She will be back on campus teaching regularly in the spring. She is a valued colleague and faculty member, but I have no comment on the tweet, because I have not seen it nor know the context of the comment.”

When presented with the tweet, McDaniel simply said “no comment.”

Carson spokeswoman Deana Bass told Examiner said that Butler’s tweet “does not merit a response.”

By Al Weaver (@alweaver22)

It is usually liberals who sit around wringing their hands about contrived issues. Recently, we see many Christian conservatives impaled on the horns of a dilemma, a position in which they find themselves more frequently in past decades.

Here is the problem. Conservative Catholics are at odds with a church and its leadership that are very left-leaning in their views of the world. We hear them daily now that the Pope is in town, trying to explain away the serious controversies caused by the Catholic Church leadership, from the very top all the way down to its army of pedophile priests.

Let me help you out here. The Pope is NOT God’s representative on earth.

How about a quick history lesson. Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God, sent to atone for the sins of humanity, offering them a path back to His Father, if we so choose. Following his death and resurrection, he appointed Peter to preside over the Apostles and disciples of the church. Yes, Peter was the head Apostle—not a Pope.

The Roman Empire murdered the Apostles, including Peter, and the early Christian church died out, awaiting restoration before Christ’s second coming, as prophesied. In the mean while, heathen Roman emperors appointed themselves as head of the very church their predecessors had murdered, mixing their own Roman heathen superstitions with the Gospel of Christ, creating a religion partly and only loosely based on Christianity, but focused mainly on accumulating power.

The Roman leadership of that new organization plundered and murdered its way through the Dark Ages, including robbing gold and virtue from the innocent peoples of the New World. Hundreds of millions of peasants have been extorted and exploited by the Catholic Church and its “celibate” priests for many hundreds of years. The abuses have mounted to intolerable levels recently, with the membership of the church becoming vocal in reporting many of those violations.

Now, Catholic Church members wonder why their current church leadership seems to lack a Godly compass—why the Pope and other leaders seem to get a few things right (abortion, family) while getting other things so wrong (socialism, man-made global warming, etc.). The truth is that no matter how good or how bad a particular Catholic Pontiff (ultimate position of power in ancient Rome—the bridge keeper) may be, that person is nothing more than a person—voted into his position through a political process in the church’s hierarchy. God has nothing to do with making a man the Pope, and He has nothing to do with the Catholic Church—except to the extent good individuals seek to do good in the world, like any other organization or religion.

So Catholic Conservatives, my advice to you is rethink your devotion to a man and his underlings who are manifestly uninspired by God, and who wear very impressive robes and fancy hats, but whose souls are as empty as the magic spells they sell to the poor for money.

PUBLIUS

House Speaker John Boehner told lawmakers Friday that he plans to resign at the end of October, in a stunning development that comes amid mounting friction with the conservative wing of the party.

He plans to step down as speaker, and resign from Congress.

The 13-term Ohio Republican shocked his GOP caucus early Friday morning when he informed them of his decision in a closed-door session. One lawmaker told Fox News he was “stunned,” and that there was “some anger” in the room “against the people who caused this to happen.”

The announcement came one day after the high point of Boehner’s congressional career, a historic speech by Pope Francis to Congress at Boehner’s request. To the backdrop of that day’s pageantry, though, Boehner was facing an internal battle in the House GOP caucus over Planned Parenthood funding and threats by some in the conservative wing to challenge his speakership.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said Boehner “just does not want to become the issue. Some people have tried to make him the issue both in Congress and outside.”

Conservatives have demanded that any legislation to keep the government operating past Wednesday’s midnight deadline strip Planned Parenthood of his funds, a move rejected by more moderate lawmakers.

Boehner took over the speakership in January 2011. The decision to step down was closely held; Fox News is told House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was only informed of Boehner’s decision “one minute” before Boehner told the GOP conference.

McCarthy said in a statement Friday: “He will be missed because there is simply no one else like him. Now is the time for our conference to focus on healing and unifying to face the challenges ahead and always do what is best for the American people.”

A Boehner aide noted the speaker’s original plan was to serve “only through the end of last year,” yet former House GOP leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss last year “changed that calculation.” But the aide seemed to make clear reference to the internal turmoil.

“Speaker Boehner believes that the first job of any Speaker is to protect this institution and, as we saw yesterday with the Holy Father, it is the one thing that unites and inspires us all,” the aide said. “… The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution.”

The aide added: “He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.”

The House will need to hold an election to select a new speaker. The last speaker to resign in the middle of a Congress was Jim Wright, D-Texas, amid an ethics scandal in 1989.

Boehner’s decision removes the possibility of a damaging vote to strip him of his speakership, a scenario that grew more likely amid the conservative clamor over a shutdown.

While the news Friday roiled Boehner allies, some conservatives welcomed his announcement.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas said “it’s time for new leadership,” and Rep. Tom Massie of Kentucky said the speaker “subverted our Republic.”

But more mainstream Republicans said it would be a pyrrhic victory for Tea Party-aligned lawmakers.

“The honor of John Boehner this morning stands in stark contrast to the idiocy of those members who seek to continually divide us,” said Rep. David Jolly of Florida.

Boehner was first elected to the House in 1990 and soon established a strongly conservative record. He was part of former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s leadership team when Republicans took over the House in 1995 for the first time in four decades but was ousted from his leadership role in the wake of the GOP’s disappointing performance in the 1998 midterms.

He won a 2006 race to succeed Tom DeLay as the House’s No. 2 Republican when DeLay stepped aside as majority leader. He took over as the top Republican in the House in 2007 after Democrats retook the chamber.

As speaker, his tenure has been defined by his early struggles to reach budget agreements with President Obama and his wrestling with the expectations of Tea Party conservatives who demanded a more confrontational approach.

In 2013, conservatives drove him to reluctantly embrace a partial government shutdown in hopes of delaying implementation of the new health care law.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Mike Emanuel and Rich Edson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I can hear the howls from the left already, because they don’t believe that there is anything special about America. They don’t see America’s exceptionalism. They don’t even see that it is a particularly nice place to live.

They are wrong.

America is a “beacon on a hill,” as described by Ronald Reagan. Don’t like Ronald Reagan? How about Bono? “America is an idea. That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history.”

The idea of America is based on its democratic-republic form of government, where all power lies in its citizens, and the states that they constitute, and only a certain limited number of powers are delegated to a “federal” system of government, and all other powers are retained by The People. This has provided the historically best, most successful fertile environment for lifting the masses out of poverty, and spreading democracy and higher standards of living throughout the world. Unchecked, much of the world could have been living in what futurists envision as a nearly Star Trek lifestyle, where people are fulfilled and have resources to pursue their dreams. Left unchecked.

Many of you may be laughing by now. I know. Leftists have done everything in their power to undermine our form of Constitutional government and turn it into just another two-bit European style semi-socialistic egalitarian nightmare. We’ve all stood by and watched as these enemies of personal liberty have twisted the Constitution until it no longer has much meaning or protection against burgeoning centralized government and bureaucratic excess. We have watched as leftists in our own ranks have reduced our economy and quality of life to international standards, and reduced our educational and health care systems to third-world, last-class standards, notwithstanding the heftiest price tags by far on the planet.

What’s next for America?

We are at a crossroads. Truly.

In the vacuum created by America’s withdrawal from the world stage, enemies of freedom are overrunning the “free world.” Islam is overtaking Europe, and is squeezing its deadly grip on the Middle East, Africa and Asia. With Islam at the helm, all of those leftists will find that they are the first to lose their heads, because Islam abhors everything that is near and dear to the Democratic Party–gays, abortionists, free speech, women’s rights, freedom from religion, etc. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton can get themselves fitted for their burkas if America fails to stand up and flex its muscles–and very soon.

I am convinced by every indicator that as leftists soften everything that is right and good in our Western life based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, and undermine the family, and turn every group and denomination against one another, a monster is waiting in the wings, just beyond the curtain, ready to take its place on the stage.

Communists are making a comeback, in the vacuum created by America’s left. There are a couple of billion of them. Islam has expanded its borders and appetite, and is sweeping across Europe, devouring everything in its path. American leftists are flooding our own nation with poorly educated, big government supporting aliens, and are looking to the Middle East for backup aliens to take up the slack.

We are fast-approaching the point of no return. We must make a decision, and take a stand. In our efforts we will be assailed by enemies of our Constitution with epithets of Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. They will do everything in their considerable power to stop America from throwing off the shackles they have forged for us. They will attempt to thwart our every convulsion against the inevitable demise of America and the human dream of liberty.

We must act now. We must act decisively. Some Republican candidates for president are saying that we must close our borders against incursion, and a few even recognize the necessity of escorting interlopers to those borders and pushing them back through to where they came from. That is not enough.

The sad truth is that America and everything it stands for is under global attack–because the idea of America is completely incompatible with Islam, Communism and Socialism–the powers that are drawing a dark cloud over the world, and trying to destroy us from within. America is the last line of defense for the weak and poor in the world, the prime targets of Islam, Communism and Socialism. Without America, these totalitarian governments will finally have free reign in the world, unobstructed by the idea of personal liberty and individual rights.

It is no longer enough to stop despots at our borders. Because we allowed them to grow too much and grow too strong, we cannot now merely put up a No Vacancy sign. We will now have to wipe out the plague, the cancer, which is spreading its malignancy through the earth. There is no longer the option of surgical removal of small tumors, but the requirement of wholesale obliteration, through widespread fire.

Peace through strength has its opposite: War through weakness.

The left has made America weak in the world, leaving the masses vulnerable, and they are dying at the hands of savages by the thousands daily. Bullies are pushing their way around the world at a pace not seen since Hitler’s National Socialist Party (Nazi). There comes a point when you can no longer appease or negotiate. We are long past that point. So while Obama and his Keystone Cops are “negotiating” with our enemies around the world, emboldening them and empowering them, Americans are left with little choice than to prepare for a great conflict.

And when that conflict is over, assuming that America is victorious, how shall we rebuild the world? In our own image–this time. We must learn–from history and common sense–that not all creeds are worthy of inclusion. Savages and enemies of liberty have no more place in the modern world. Yes, it’s come to that.

PUBLIUS

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., told an audience at Liberty University that the United States was founded “on racist principles.” He added, “That’s a fact. We have come a long way as a nation.”

The principles on which on our country was established are articulated with clarity in the Declaration of Independence. On the matter of race, the Declaration has one simple but profound teaching: “all men are created equal.” That’s it. There are no qualifications or subtractions.

Nowhere does the Declaration or the Constitution, for that matter, classify human beings according to the color of their skin.

Far from the principle of equality being a product of racism, it actually struck at the heart of slavery. By making equality the defining principle of the nation, the Founders hoped to put slavery on the course of its ultimate extinction.

While some of the Founders held slaves, they all knew that blacks were human beings.

In a rough draft of the Declaration, Jefferson charged King George III with waging “cruel war against human nature itself” by keeping “open a market where men should be bought & sold.” By calling slaves men, Jefferson clearly recognized their humanity.

Not only did the Founders think that blacks were human beings, but they also acknowledged the wrongness of slavery in principle.

Benjamin Franklin succinctly stated his opinion on slavery: “Slavery is…an atrocious debasement of human nature.” George Washington argued that “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

The Founders knew that slavery was wrong in principle, because it violated the rights of slaves to enjoy their natural liberty—the very same liberty the colonists fought for in the American Revolution.

But a problem emerges: Why did the Founders not simply prohibit slavery in the Constitution? And didn’t the Constitution actually condone slavery?

The Founders were well aware that the institution of slavery blatantly violated the principles of the Declaration. But without a strong union that included the Southern states, which would have never ratified a constitution that abolished slavery, the new nation would not have existed.

Of the several compromises made over slavery in the original Constitution, perhaps the most egregious one from our vantage point is the three-fifths clause.

Contrary to common opinion, however, the three-fifths clause did not mean that the Founders thought that blacks were three-fifths of a human being. First of all, the text refers to “other persons”—the term persons meaning human beings. In fact, in 1790 there were approximately sixty-thousand free blacks, who possessed all the same rights as whites.

Secondly, the three-fifths clauses was a compromise between the North and South in which three-fifths of slaves were counted for purposes of taxation and representation. Southerners in fact wanted to count slaves as full persons, thus magnifying their political power. Northerners did not want slaves to be counted at all specifically because they thought it was wrong to further encourage the importation of more slaves.

Though arguments could be made that the Founders made too many compromises, their overall project was to set anti-slavery principles in place so that they could be enforced at some point in the future.

The anti-slavery character of the Declaration and Constitution was grasped by the great civil rights leaders of the past two centuries, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Douglass, a former slave, called the Constitution “a glorious liberty document.”

In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King likened the “magnificent words” of the Declaration and Constitution to a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

King continued: “This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

Our exceptionalism as a nation is not measured by how far we have separated ourselves from the principles laid out in the Declaration.

It instead derives from how closely we live up to those principles.

By Michael Sabo 

LIBERALS HATE IT.

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues.

That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Conservative Tribune

The U.S. Census Bureau has released its annual poverty report. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has a small social welfare system and far more poverty compared with other affluent nations. But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book “Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?”

Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social welfare spending and poverty in rich nations. They define social welfare as having five components: health care spending, education spending, cash retirement benefits, other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC), and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing.

The authors find that in the U.S., social welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits. For example, in the U.S., government health care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance. The U.S. government health care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations.

Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources.

But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third highest level of per capita government social welfare spending. This is striking, given that government spending in the U.S.  is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly.

When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel, et al. conclude:

For those who believe the absolute size of the US welfare state is small, the data presented … [in the book] are shocking and constitute a wake up call. Once health and education benefits are counted, real per capita social welfare in the United States is larger than in almost all other countries!

Only one nation (Norway) spends more per person than the U.S. spends.

How much of this spending reaches the poor? The left often claims that the U.S has a far higher poverty rate than other developed nations have. These claims are based on a “relative poverty” standard, in which being “poor” is defined as having an income below 50 percent of the national median. Since the median income in the United States is substantially higher than the median income in most European countries, these comparisons establish a higher hurdle for escaping from “poverty” in the U.S. than is found elsewhere.

Measuring the poverty-fighting success of the United States versus Europe according to this uneven standard is like having a race in which the European sprinters run 100 meters and the American runner runs 125 meters. The Europeans reach the finish line first and are declared faster. Using such non-uniform standards to compare countries is obviously misleading.

A more meaningful analysis would compare countries against a uniform standard. To their credit, Garfinkel and his co-authors do exactly that. They measure the percentage of people in each country who fall below the poverty-income threshold in the U.S. ($24,008 per year for a family of four in 2014). The authors reasonably broaden the measure of income to include “non-cash” benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and equivalent programs in other nations. They also subtract taxes paid by low-income families, which are heavy in Europe. (Their poverty comparison does not include health care and education.)

By this uniform measure, the U.S. was found to have a poverty rate in 2000 that was lower than the United Kingdom’s but higher than the poverty rates of most other West European nations. But the differences in poverty according to this uniform standard were very small. For example, the poverty rate in the U.S. was 8.7 percent, while the average among other affluent countries was around 7.6 percent. The rate in Germany was 7.3 percent, and in Sweden, it was 7.5 percent. Using a slightly higher uniform standard set at 125 percent of the U.S. poverty-income thresholds, the authors find that the U.S. actually has a slightly lower poverty rate than other affluent countries.

Misperceptions about the extent and severity of U.S. poverty are, in part, driven by the Census Bureau’s consistently flawed poverty report. Census defines a family as poor if its income falls below certain thresholds. But in counting income, Census ignores almost all of the trillion dollars per year that government spends on means-tested welfare aid. Census pretends that programs such as food stamps, the refundable EITC, and housing vouchers do not exist. No surprise, then, that other government reports show that poor people spend $2.30 for every $1.00 of income Census claims they have.

The actual living standards of the poor differ greatly from conventional perceptions. The government’s own data show that the typical poor family in the U.S. has air-conditioning, a car, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that only 4 percent of poor children were hungry for even a single day in the prior year because of a lack of funds for food.

Only 7 percent of poor households are over-crowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. By his own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed.

It is, of course, a good thing that left-wing claims of widespread deprivation in the U.S. are inaccurate. But government welfare policy should be about more than shoveling out a trillion dollars per year in “free” benefits. When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he sought to decrease welfare dependence and increase self-sufficiency: the ability of family to support itself above poverty without the need for government handouts. By that score, the War on Poverty has been a $24-trillion flop. While self-sufficiency improved dramatically in the decades before the War on Poverty started, for the last 45 years, it has been at a standstill.

A decent welfare system would return to Johnson’s original goal of reducing poverty by increasing self-sufficiency. It would require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work if they are to receive benefits. It would reward, not penalize, marriage. In other words, it would be the exact opposite of the welfare behemoth we currently have.

by Robert Rector 

 

A debate over Islam — first sparked by Donald Trump not correcting a town hall questioner who called President Obama a non-American Muslim, and now Ben Carson saying a Muslim should not be president — has unexpectedly shifted the conversation in the Republican presidential race.

So far, neither candidate at the center of the furor is backing down. Trump has said he had no obligation to correct the man who wrongly called Obama a Muslim. And Carson is doubling down on his remarks from Sunday.

Carson, a Christian and retired neurosurgeon, initially commented on whether a Muslim should be president on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He later told The Hill that the next president should be “sworn in on a stack Bibles, not a Koran.” He explained, “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.”

Carson’s comments were attacked by Democrats, while fellow Republicans gave a more careful answer to the same question. In a primary race that so far has been as unpredictable as it is unruly, the Muslim debate marks the latest sharp turn — after previous heated debates over illegal immigration and other issues.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Sunday, “It’s hard to understand what’s so difficult about supporting an American citizen’s right to run for president.

“But unsurprisingly, this left Republicans scratching their heads. Of course a Muslim, or any other American citizen, can run for president, end of story.”

In a separate appearance on NBC, fellow 2016 GOP candidate Ohio Gov. John Kasich, was asked whether he would have a problem with a Muslim in the White House.

“The answer is, at the end of the day, you’ve got to go through the rigors, and people will look at everything. But, for me, the most important thing about being president is you have leadership skills, you know what you’re doing and you can help fix this country and raise this country. Those are the qualifications that matter to me.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who taped Sunday an episode of Iowa Press, an Iowa Public Television program, was asked if he agreed with Carson’s statements on Muslims being president.

“The Constitution specifies that there shall be no religious test for public office, and I am a constitutionalist,” Cruz said.

Fellow GOP contender and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio suggested the entire matter is a distraction.

He told ABC News: “This has nothing to do with the future of our country. These issues have been discussed ad nauseam over the last few years. It’s a big waste of time. Barack Obama will not be president in a year and a half. It’s time to start talking about the future of America and the people that are at home.”

Carson, a top-tier 2016 candidate and popular among the GOP’s evangelical wing, made the statement Sunday after fellow Republican candidate Trump was addressed by a man during a rally Thursday in New Hampshire who said President Obama is a Muslim.

“We have a problem in this country,” the unidentified man said. “It’s called Muslim. … You know our current president is one.”

Obama is a Christian. But Trump has declined to address the issue, saying he is not “morally obligated” to set straight the record.

Carson also described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. However, he did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.

Carson said he believes Obama is a Christian and has “no reason to doubt what he says.”

He also said he would consider voting for a Muslim running for Congress, depending on “who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”

Carson also made a distinction when it came to electing Muslims to Congress, calling it a “different story” from the presidency that “depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says.”

Congress has two Muslim members, Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana.

“If there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them,” Carson said.

FOXNEW.COM/The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The survey, conducted in the three days after 23 million people tuned in to Wednesday night’s GOP debate on CNN, shows that Trump is still the party’s front-runner with 24% support. That, though, is an 8 percentage point decrease from earlier in the month when a similar poll had him at 32%.

Fiorina ranks second with 15% support — up from 3% in early September. She’s just ahead of Ben Carson’s 14%, though Carson’s support has also declined from 19% in the previous poll.

Driving Trump’s drop and Fiorina’s rise: a debate in which 31% of Republicans who watched said Trump was the loser, and 52% identified Fiorina as the winner.

During the CNN debate, Fiorina clashed with Trump over his personal attacks and their business records and scored points for her condemnation of Planned Parenthood.

The top three contenders underscore a key theme in the 2016 race: In a jampacked GOP presidential field, the leading candidates are the only ones who have never held political office.

But one established politician has seen his standing rise after flashing foreign policy chops on the debate stage. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — identified as Wednesday’s winner by 14% of Republicans, putting him second behind Fiorina — is now in fourth place with 11% support, up from 3% in a previous poll.

In fifth place is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at 9%. He’s followed by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6% each, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 4%, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 3%, Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 2% and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at 1%.

Five other candidates received less than one-half of 1 percentage point support: former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Walker’s collapse is especially stark.

Celebrated by conservatives — in the party’s base and its donor class alike — for his union-busting efforts in Wisconsin, Walker at one point led the field in the key early voting state of Iowa.

His support had already dropped to 5% in a CNN/ORC poll in early September, but the bottom appears to have fallen out completely since then — with a second flat debate performance coming after criticism of his disparate answers on issues like birthright citizenship.

Carson was a quiet presence in Wednesday’s debate, but he remains the most popular candidate in the GOP field, with 65% of Republican voters saying they view him favorably, compared with just 10% saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the retired neurosurgeon.

Rubio ranks second in the popularity contest, with 57% viewing him favorably and 16% unfavorably. He’s followed by Fiorina (54% favorable to 17% unfavorable), Huckabee (53% to 28% unfavorable), Cruz (52% to 22%) and Trump (52% to 40%).

The biggest positive movement was in favor of Fiorina, whose favorability rating has climbed by 9 percentage points since August. And the biggest drop hit Trump, who shed 6 percentage points in that same period.

But Trump still stands out on the issues.

About 44% of likely GOP voters say they see Trump as the candidate who could best handle the economy — well ahead of his nearest competitors: Fiorina at 11%, Rubio at 10% and Bush at 8%.

Trump also wins on immigration, with 47% saying he could best address the issue, ahead of second-place Rubio’s 15% and Bush’s 9%.

He even edges Rubio, 22% to 17%, on who could best handle foreign policy.

The poll offered some good overall news for Republicans: 65% of GOP voters said they are either “extremely” or “very” enthusiastic about voting in the 2016 presidential race, compared with 51% of Democrats.

The CNN/ORC poll was conducted September 17-19 and surveyed 1,006 adult Americans, including 924 registered voters — 444 of whom are Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP. The margin of error with the Republican results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

By Eric Bradner, CNN

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The recently concluded federal trial over North Carolina’s election rules proved one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: The Obama administration and its partisan, big-money, racial-interest-group allies will stop at nothing to win elections. And using the courts to change election rules is a key part of their strategy.

That was clearly evident in the federal courtroom in Winston-Salem. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, challenged a number of election reforms implemented in 2013 that were designed to reduce the cost and complexity of running elections and make it harder to commit voter fraud.

The administration pushed a novel legal argument. In its telling, if a change in election rules might statistically affect blacks more than whites, it constitutes illegal discrimination. For example, if 98 percent of whites have a voter ID but only 97.5 percent of blacks have one, then requiring voters to present ID violates federal law. Never mind the fact that getting an ID is free, easy, and open to everyone without regard to race. And never mind if a policy change is in line with the rules of many other states, or if it’s explicitly sanctioned by federal law. The mere act of changing the law in the wrong direction is discriminatory.

In other words, the Obama administration would turn the Voting Rights Act into a one-way ratchet to help Democrats. The court refused to go along.

None of the reforms had an obvious racial angle. For example, North Carolina required voters to vote in the precinct where they actually live. This commonsense reform—returning to the law the state had prior to 2003—prevents chaos on Election Day, from overcrowded polling places to precincts running out of ballots because election officials can’t predict how many voters will show up. Thirty-one states do not allow voting outside of your precinct. The Justice Department claims that North Carolina broke the law when it returned to this policy.

North Carolina was wrong to end same-day registration, too, according to Justice. North Carolina implemented same-day registration in 2007. Shortly thereafter, a local election in Pembroke, N.C., had to be done over because of voter fraud and unverified ballots. The problem with same-day registration is that people can register and cast a ballot simultaneously—leaving election officials unable to verify the accuracy of a voter’s registration information. So the state changed that. In North Carolina, you now have to register at least 25 days before the election, well within the voting standard set by federal law, which makes 30 days the maximum. Only about a dozen states today have same-day registration.

The state also shaved a few days off early voting to cut down costs, but North Carolina’s new ten-day period falls well within the norm. The number of early-voting days allowed by states varies from just four to 45, with the average being 19. At least 16 states don’t allow early voting at all. Additionally, more than 20 early-voting states do not allow either any weekend voting or Sunday voting, both of which are available in North Carolina. And yet, according the Justice Department, this reform was also illegal.

The rule in most states is that you can register to vote if you will be 18 prior to Election Day. In 2009, North Carolina changed the law to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register, apparently causing a logistics nightmare for election officials, who were forced to create two different voter-registration lists and integrate them when the pre-registered teenagers actually became eligible to vote. So the state went back to the prior rule, which the vast majority of states follow. Justice challenged this decision as well.

To no one’s surprise, given the current Justice Department’s partisan history on voting-related issues, North Carolina’s new voter-ID requirement was also challenged, although that law will not be in effect until 2016.

Incredibly, the Justice Department, the NAACP, and the other plaintiffs claimed that all of these changes were “discriminatory” and violated the Voting Rights Act—a law designed to break down racial barriers to the ballot box. Apparently, in 2015 North Carolina, not being able to register when you are 16, having to register 25 days ahead of time, having only ten days before the actual date of an election to vote, and being required to vote on Election Day in the precinct where you actually live are not only racist, but barriers to voting itself.  Contrast these “conditions” with the ugly discrimination of the early ’60s.

Times have certainly changed. When the racial interest groups sued North Carolina over its reforms, a swarm of lawyers from gigantic law firms donated their services. The Justice Department devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours to attack the law. But no witnesses could be found to say they couldn’t vote because of the changes.

The Justice Department also pumped untold thousands of dollars into a database run by a company called Catalist. This database has been populated with data provided by the Democratic National Committee, unions, and other liberal organizations and is used to help them win elections. Catalist’s infrastructure and database are expensive to maintain, but fear not: the Justice Department, in the North Carolina trial and elsewhere, has provided federal tax dollars to its expert witnesses so that they could purchase Catalist’s proprietary data. Yes, federal dollars were used to fund a database that will be used next year to try to win the 2016 election for Democratic candidates.

For all the resources expended, the Justice Department’s entire case was built on speculative claims. Not able to produce a single eligible voter who was or would be unable to vote, the plaintiffs relied on hypothetical statistical arguments to claim that the turnout of black voters would be “suppressed” because they might use early voting and same-day registration slightly more than white voters, and because black voters are “less sophisticated voters.” DOJ experts actually made the borderline racist argument that “it’s less likely to imagine” that black voters could “figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.” That’s a shameful way to enforce a law that was used to protect real victims of real discrimination in the Deep South.

In the end, real statistics destroyed the Justice Department’s case. The reforms the plaintiffs claimed would disenfranchise “less sophisticated” black voters didn’t depress turnout at all. Indeed, in comparison with the 2010 primary, the turnout of black voters actually increased a whopping 29.5 percent in the May 2014 primary election, while the turnout of whites increased only 13.7 percent. The same thing happened in the general election. This knocked the stuffing out of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

The Justice Department still holds a thoroughly demeaning view of civil-rights law. It is a view that insists that blacks are incapable of performing basic societal functions, and therefore the law must step in any time they are asked to comply with a simple procedural step to participate in the electoral process. This is not only an abuse of the department’s authority; it’s a misuse of the Voting Rights Act. It should not be tolerated.

J. Christian Adams / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky

In Denver, city council members are weighing whether Chick-fil-A will be allowed to open in the Denver International Airport.

Denver council member Paul Lopez “called opposition to the chain at DIA ‘really, truly a moral issue,’” according to the Denver Post, while council member Robin Kniech is alarmed about Chick-fil-A’s “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.”

“Ten of the 13 [Denver city council] members attended Tuesday’s meeting, and none rose to defend Chick-fil-A, although some didn’t weigh in,” reported the Post.

Chick-fil-A’s crime? Well, back in 2012—when 48 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage, according to Gallup—Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy spoke out about his opposition to gay marriage, setting off a firestorm. The fact that the CEO of a company so committed to Christian values that it’s not even open on Sundays opposed gay marriage was somehow shocking.

But Cathy, while not changing his views (at least publicly), has changed his tone in the ensuing years. “I’m going to leave it to politicians and others to discuss social issues,” Cathy told USA Today in 2014. Campus Pride executive director Shane Windmeyer told USA Today that he had a “friendship” with Cathy and was “appreciative for the common ground we have established in treating all people with dignity and respect — including LGBT people.”

What a hater.

If the Denver City Council is concerned about the morality of the businesses at the airport, they should take a closer look at two current occupants: Ben and Jerry’s and Starbucks.

According to 2nd Vote, Starbucks Foundation has donated to Planned Parenthood, while Starbucks has been “listed as a company that matches employees’ gifts to Planned Parenthood.” Ben and Jerry’s parent company, Unilever, has donated to Planned Parenthood. Neither Starbucks nor Ben and Jerry’s responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment in July when asked about their support for Planned Parenthood.

Maybe that’s because even the best PR whizzes are hard-pressed to explain why a corporation would donate to a company whose executives have been caught on camera cavalierly discussing the sale of fetal body parts. (Planned Parenthood has denied the organization profits from selling fetal body parts or tissue, and has said the organization follows all laws.)

Some of the videos’ highlights suggest that Planned Parenthood, which performs around a third of abortions in the United States, hardly represents American values:

–In  the first video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, makes statements suggesting Planned Parenthood may perform partial-birth abortions, despite such procedures being illegal.

— Former StemExpress employee Holly O’Donnell told the Center for Medical Progress that it did not appear all women whose children’s fetal tissue was used gave consent: “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

— In the second undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Mary Gatter, president of the Medical Directors’ Council for Planned Parenthood, joked that “I want a Lamborghini” when discussing prices for fetal tissue.

Liberals, for all their talk about tolerance, have long shown they have no interest in coexistence with Chick-fil-A. In 2012, mayors of major cities across the country denounced Chick-fil-A. “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” said Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee tweeted, “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” Then-Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray wrote, “Given my long standing strong support for LGBT rights and marriage equality, I would not support #hatechicken.”

Just try to imagine what the reaction would be if say, a Texas town tried to ban Starbucks or Ben and Jerry’s.

Liberals are free to boycott Chick-fil-A, just as conservatives can boycott companies who support organizations who donate to groups advocating stances they find immoral or wrong.

But it’s another matter entirely to bring in the government to ban Chick-fil-A entirely. It should be consumers, not government officials, who decide which businesses thrive and which don’t.

Denver, it’s time to try a little tolerance.

bu Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko

A University of North Carolina English course on the 9/11 attacks comes with a lengthy reading list of works that critics say portray Americans as the bad guys and radical Islamists as sympathetic, but some of the professor’s former students warn those taking the class not to disagree with the professor.

According to a posting by a UNC student on higher education blog The College Fix, “Literature of 9/11” offers a syllabus of reading assignments that include poems, memoirs and graphic novels widely perceived as presenting terrorists in a sympathetic light and the U.S. as an imperialist nation. The course is taught by associate professor Neel Ahuja, and according to a review of his course syllabus, most of the reading focuses on justification. Required reading includes “Poems from Guantanamo: Detainees Speak,” a collection of poems written by terror detainees; “Reluctant Fundamentalist,” a work of fiction in which the protagonist is a successful Pakistani in the U.S. who eventually comes to believe America to be evil; and “Sirens of Baghdad,” the final installment in a trilogy of novels focusing on Islamic fundamentalism.

“Carolina offers academic courses to challenge students – not to advocate one viewpoint over another.” – Statement from University of North Carolina

“[The book] brings the reader inside the mind of an unnamed terrorist-to-be, an Iraqi Bedouin, radicalized by witnessing the death of innocents and the humiliation of the civilian population by the American forces in the Second Gulf War,” reads a review from Publisher’s Weekly. “Without apologizing for the carnage caused by either side in the conflict, the author [Yasmina Khadra] , a former officer in the Algerian army, manages to make the thoughts of a suicide bomber accessible to a Western readership, even as the scope of the terrorist’s intended target, meant to dwarf 9/11 in its impact, and the method’s plausibility will send a shiver down the spine of most readers.”

Ahuja did not respond to requests for comment but university officials defended the course.

“For any student, part of the college experience is the opportunity to grow by learning about yourself and how you engage with and learn from those who have different points of view,” the Chapel Hill school said in a statement. “Carolina’s first-year seminar program is part of that growth. The University isn’t forcing a set of beliefs on students; we’re asking them to prepare for and engage in every lesson, debate and conversation, and share what they think. Carolina offers academic courses to challenge students – not to advocate one viewpoint over another.”

However, online criticism of Ahuja’s teaching style says otherwise.

“He favors kids who share his own views, so learn to do that,” wrote one poster who took the class in 2010. “A very interesting guy, just don’t disagree with him.”

Another commenter agreed, writing last November, “AGREE WITH HIS STANCE IN YOUR PAPERS!!!!!”

“Portray yourself as a socialist who views USA as a horrible imperialist country squashing other countries- support illegal immigration and radical Islam,” wrote another commenter. “Then you will get an easy A.”

However, some former students took issue with The College Fix report.

“As someone who took this class at UNC, I strongly disagree with this article,” read a comment from one former student. “The class would be more aptly named, ‘The Cultural Impact of 9/11,’ and considering the class as I took it in 2011, much of this article is untrue. Course reading also included “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” a Jonahtan Safran Foer novel from the perspective of a young jewish boy whose father was lost in the event.”

Charles Stozier, founding director of the Center on Terrorism at John Jay College in New York and author of the 2011 book, “Until The Fires Stopped Burning: 9/11 and New York City in the Words and Experiences of Survivors and Witnesses,” said he understands what Ahuja is trying to do, but doesn’t necessarily agree with his methods.

“He’s obviously trying to convey that there’s literature from outside of the perspective of the survivor and witnesses,” Strozier said. “You could say that the course takes no account of the victims of 9/11, which is okay, but the course seems to privilege a different perspective.

Stozier, who is teaching three courses on terrorism this fall at John Jay, said that he would have devised a different syllabus.

“I would prefer a broader political approach by starting with a look at the effects through victim and survivor statements and then look at some of the other perspectives,” he said.

Officials from UNC say that the class is voluntary and that like many other seminar programs, students should use it as an opportunity for debate.

“More than 80 seminar courses on a wide variety of topics were available to incoming freshman this semester,” read the statement provided to FoxNews.com. “The ability to bring differing points of view goes beyond the classroom; each year, student organizations invite speakers representing their own platforms that, collectively, offer an array of diverse ideologies from the left and right that lead to intellectual debate and discovery.”

Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @perrych