Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Taliban and AQ Taking A Beating In Pakistan

It looks like President Bush's visit to Pakistan may have paid off, as Musharraf appears to have re-energized his campaign in Waziristan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban remnants that have taken refuge there. In a protracted battle near the Afghanistan border, Pakistani forces have killed scores of the Islamist terrorists:

Pakistani security forces battled pro-Taliban rebels holding out in a town near the Afghan border on Monday, killing 19 of them as the toll from three days of clashes rose to more than 120, the military said.

The rebels launched attacks on government positions in Miran Shah on Saturday as President Bush met Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in the capital. The fighting has raged since. ...

Militants launched attacks and seized government buildings Saturday in Miran Shah in revenge for a government attack Wednesday that killed 45 fighters.

The toll from the first day of fighting rose from 46 to more than 100 militants as more detailed reports arrived, Sultan said. Two militants were killed Sunday.

Five troops were killed and two wounded over the three days, he said.

That ratio shows that the Taliban and AQ cannot defeat anyone militarily; no army could suffer losses at a ratio of 100-5, and Pakistan has a lot more resources than the Islamists do. All they needed was the proper motivation. The rebels helped supply that by staging a rather stupid offensive during Bush's visit to Musharraf, giving Bush all the context he needed to press Musharraf for more decisive action against the holdouts in the border area.

The Afghanis also prodded Musharraf into action, a move they continue to defend today:

A rift between Afghanistan and Pakistan deepened Tuesday as Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said intelligence about Taliban and al-Qaida fugitives allegedly hiding in Pakistan was "very strong and accurate." ...

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan — key allies of Washington in its war on terror — have deteriorated sharply since Karzai gave Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month a list of Taliban and al-Qaida fugitives he said were hiding in Pakistan.

Afghan and Pakistani officials told The Associated Press the list included Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar and top associates, and that Afghanistan also shared the locations of alleged terrorist training camps. ..

Pakistan has accused Afghanistan of leaking the list to the media because Kabul did not trust Islamabad to act on it. "The bad-mouthing against Pakistan is a deliberate, articulated conspiracy," Musharraf was quoted as saying Monday by the state-run news agency, Associated Press of Pakistan.

Pakistan has had an uneven approach to fighting the militants in its border regions over the past few years. It presses in engagements such as the active battle we see now, but then relaxes for a while and tries to use the tribes as proxies to flush out the terrorists. That demonstrates the tense relationship that Islamabad has with these tribal leaders. Pakistan has long relied on them to act as a trip-wire defense against threats foreign threats in order to keep its military mobile in the less daunting landscape farther inside its borders. With a number of the tribes at least somewhat sympathetic to the Islamists, the Pakistanis have to tread carefully in order to maintain their traditional security barriers.

However, as Musharraf has seen this past week, as bad as angering and alienating the tribes might be, it's far worse to allow the Islamists to gather in the north and slowly gather into a substantial threat. As soon as they feel strong enough, they will attack Musharraf and the military and exploit the tribes either for support or to act as shields. Their attacks are not limited towards Islamabad either, but at least equally include Afghanistan and its new government. The US made it clear earlier that it would not forever resist the impulse to strike back on its own against the Taliban/AQ remnants using Pakistan as a terror base, and Afghanistan made sure that the world knew it had given Musharraf enough information to act on his own.

Musharraf needs a push now and then to recommit to the war. Bush and Karzai provided it this week, as did the terrorists themselves, and the results have been excellent thus far.

Arab-American Psychologist Tongue Lashes Al-Jazeera

One of the hottest downloads of the past week has been the stunning video of Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan, who administered quite a tongue-lashing to an Islamist host on Al-Jazeera TV.

Video of Interview

Read More »Transcript excerpt below:


Wafa Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

[...]

Host: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"

Wafa Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."

[...]

Host: "Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind..."

Wafa Sultan: "The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

"My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the 'People of the Book'; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians 'those who incur Allah's wrath.' Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?' They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them 'those who incur Allah's wrath,' or 'those who have gone astray,' and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?"

[…]

"I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it."

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Are you a heretic?"

Wafa Sultan: "You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural..."

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran..."

Wafa Sultan: "These are personal matters that do not concern you."

[...]

"Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs."

[...]

"The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind

Monday, March 06, 2006

According To Kenneth Turan Hollywood Isn't Liberal Enough


Kenneth Turan is angry that Oscar didn't anoint Brokeback Mountain as its Best Picture winner, and he's certain he knows why it didn't -- all that latent homophobia running around Hollywood. It couldn't be anything else ... right, Kenneth?

Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.

Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.

More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."

Now, Hollywood has a lot of faults, but latent homophobia just isn't one of them. The movie business is one of the most gay-friendly industries in the US, and by any reckoning it includes more open gays among its power elite than any other big business. Their products routinely support gay issues and the gay culture, and their representation in the Academy certainly surpasses their demographic standing in the population as a whole.

Why does Turan want to assign the loss of the Oscar to homophobia? Because it was his favorite film of the year, and Turan does not want to consider that others may not share that conviction out of honest opinion and not some hidden bias against gays. And this is exactly why the Academy Awards always turns out to be more about politics than actual film excellence. When a film loses -- a film which, by the way, got nominated as one of the top five films by the same Academy -- its partisans always throw rhetorical and political firebombs at the Academy and its voters. Turan demands that the Academy honor this film because of its subject matter, or else it proves that Oscar voters have a secret bigotry towards gays.

It's rhetorical extortion. Turan argues for political anointment rather than honest opinion. He's a martinet instead of a film critic, and he's not alone.

No doubt Turan is upset that his favorite film lost. Perhaps he should put himself in the position of most Americans, who wondered why the Academy rarely nominates any of their favorites these days, a good question in a year in which all of the nominees had less-than-impressive runs at the box office. (via Mickey Kaus)

Sunday, March 05, 2006

God Lied, people Died

God Lied, People Died?

Alan Cowell of the NY Times takes his criticism of British PM Tony Blair to a higher level:

Blair Invokes God in Decision to Send British Troops to Iraq

LONDON, March 3 — Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that God influenced his deliberations when he committed British troops to fight alongside American forces in Iraq.

The remarks, which surprised some antiwar campaigners, were made in an Independent Television talk show to be broadcast Saturday night. A transcript was released by the ITV station on Friday.

"God influenced his deliberations"? That is not even supported by the interview excerpts presented by Mr. Cowell. Mr. Blair makes two points - history, other people, and, if you believe in the concept, God will judge Blair's decision to go to war with Iraq; and yes, Tony Blair prays.

Mr. Blair drew plenty of criticism in Britain, but the thrust was different:

The BBC:

PM attacked on Iraq 'God' remarks
Anti-war campaigners have criticised Tony Blair after he suggested his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

The prime minister told ITV1's Parkinson chat show: "If you believe in God (the judgement) is made by God."

The Independent:

Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq'
Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

An Independent editorial:

For Mr Blair to invoke God as the ultimate arbiter of his decision to go to war in Iraq suggests marks a change. In the past, the Prime Minister took the secular view that history would be his judge. With history turning against him in Iraq, perhaps God offers the prospect of greater mercy.

CNN International:

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair says God and history will judge whether he was right to go to war in Iraq, according to the transcript of a television interview to be broadcast Saturday.

The Times is in their own choir on this one.

The BBC offers a more complete excerpt.

UPDATE: Via Matt Drudge, we see that the NY Times has the AFP, if not God, on their side:

Blair under fire for evoking God in Iraq war decision

LONDON (AFP) - Tony Blair triggered strong reactions from parents of soldiers killed in Iraq and the political opposition, after the British prime minister evoked God in his decision to go to war.

Details emerged Friday of Blair's interview on an ITV1 television talk show where he said God and history would judge his action in joining the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

"That decision has to be taken and has to be lived with, and in the end there is a judgment that -- well, I think if you have faith about these things then you realise that judgment is made by other people," Blair said in the interview with host Michael Parkinson which will air Saturday night.

Pressed to clarify what he meant, Blair, a devout Christian, replied: "If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."


hattip:Tom McGuire

Saturday, March 04, 2006

What You See Is Not Always What You Get

The L.A. Times web site is trumpeting a story titled Bush Is Warned on Katrina in Video. I suspect that this will be Page One in the print edition this morning. The story dishonestly reports the facts to try to make President Bush seem like a liar:

The edited video, released by Associated Press, shows Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, briefing state and federal officials — including Chertoff and Michael D. Brown, then director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency — on Aug. 28. Bush was at his Texas ranch and participated by videophone.

Mayfield tells the officials he wants “to make it absolutely clear to everyone that there is potential for large loss of life … in the coastal areas from the storm surge,” and emphasizes that there is a “very, very grave concern” about the ability of the levees that separated Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans to stand up against the storm.

On Sept. 1, Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”

The part of the quotation I have bolded is dishonest in the extreme. It is designed to suggest that Bush was warned beforehand that the levees might be breached — and therefore lied when he said that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.

But the “very, very grave concern” referred to in the video is not whether the levees would “stand up against the storm” (i.e. whether or not they would be breached), but whether they would be topped. Let’s go to the transcript, which (inconveniently for The Times) dispels the dark suggestion that BushLied™. You can read what Mayfield actually said at page 6 of the transcript:

I don’t think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies [sic] will be topped or not, but that’s obviously a very, very grave concern.

(My emphasis.)

Whether levees were going to “stand up against the storm” — in other words, whether they are going to be breached — is a very different question from whether levees are going to be overtopped by flooding. As John Hinderaker and Dafydd ab Hugh have already observed about the AP story on the video, there is a big difference between the levees being overtopped and the levees breaking. Let me quote Dafydd on the related AP story:

[T]he video footage shows no such warning, either inside or outside the meeting, that Katrina might “breach levees.”

The video shows one person . . . warning that people could be in danger if the levees were “overtopped.” Overtopping is not breaching, as common sense and English as our primary language should tell us.

The distinction is critical, because Bush never said nobody anticipated that the levees might be overtopped. He said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees — a much more serious event.

As I have already said, I believe some people did indeed anticipate the breach of the levees beforehand. I was not pleased with Bush’s statement when he made it.

But this video adds nothing to the story. And the L.A. Times (and the AP) have to completely distort what is said in the video to make it sound like news.

Far from showing us that Bush lied, today’s story tells us that L.A. Times editors and reporters are willing to lie to their readers.

UPDATE: Dafydd’s inaccurate reference to Max Mayfield as a “TV weatherman” in one of the above quotes has been removed with ellipses. I never meant to endorse that part of the quote, but I think it’s better to simply remove it entirely to make that clear.

UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit, Mickey Kaus, Jeff Goldstein, Pajamas Media, and others who have linked the post.

UPDATE x3: Thanks also to Lucianne Goldberg for the link.

UPDATE x4 [3-3-06]: A debate is raging in the comments concerning the distinction between overtopping and breaching, with lefties straining hard to equate the two, but failing. I’m no expert in this area, but from the materials I have seen, it appears to me that overtopping can (but need not) cause an eventual breach, depending on the circumstances. This does not mean that overtopping is the same as breaching — they are different concepts with different consequences, again depending on the particular circumstances of the flooding event. Reinforcing the point is the star of the video discussed above, Max Mayfield, in this NBC report from yesterday:

Today, Mayfield told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, “Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.”

Thanks to commenter MayBee for the link.

UPDATE x5: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking this post.

I’d like to note a New York Times story from September 2:

[O]n Thursday, disaster experts and frustrated officials said a crucial shortcoming may have been the failure to predict that the levees keeping Lake Pontchartrain out of the city would be breached, not just overflow.

. . . .

“We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped,” [Army Corps of Engineers deputy district engineer Greg Breerwood] said. “We never did think they would actually be breached.”

Just more support for the proposition that the L.A. Times’s characterization is garbage. Under any rational reading, a failure to “stand up” means breaching — but that’s not what Bush was warned about.

Even the AP is no longer pretending that breaching and overtopping are the same thing . . .

Friday, March 03, 2006

More On Bush Basher's Indoctrination Of Students

Indoctrination High
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 3, 2006
IT GIVES NEW MEANING TO THE TERM, “CLASS WARFARE.”

A 16-year-old student’s recording of Jay Bennish’s virulent political screed during a 10th grade geography class held February 1 at Overland High School of Aurora, Colorado, demonstrated once again that the Left prefers to begin its indoctrination as early as possible.

One snippet of the class, in which Bennish said President Bush’s most recent State of the Union Address “sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say,” has garnered media exposure. In the clip, Bennish claimed Bush told the world in his State of the Union Address:

America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed, essentially by God, to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us. Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say…it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to…there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very “ethnocentric.”

Parents are rightly outraged, but this quotation hardly does justice to the 21-minute, 40-second rant – a rambling, full-throated shout denouncing Bush, Operation Iraqi Freedom, capitalism, the War on Drugs, the CIA, Israel, and the American flag. (Listen or download here. Read Michelle Malkin’s partial transcript here, additional excerpts here.)

The Rest of the Story

Bennish actually begins the rant by suggesting Iranians would be justified in bombing North Carolina tobacco fields.

Then he calls the United States “probably the single most violent nation on planet earth…And we’re a democracy, quote-unquote.

In what way are we the most violent nation on the planet? “Between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States, through the CIA, conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small island nation of Cuba.” He also claims CIA agents have “dirty minds” and “want to kill people for the sake of killing them.” No word on whether this includes William Sloane Coffin and Valerie Plame.

Making a quick about-face, he urges students to “Make sure you get these definitions down.” Among them is capitalism. After his “instruction,” he asks, “Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It’s at odds with human rights.”

He hints America invaded Iraq for economic gain. Then he pivots to Bush’s “blind, naïve faith in democracy” (much like Pericles). “What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?!” Actually, I’m pretty sure six Arab nations did exactly that in 1948. Bennish blusters on, “Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future attack?”

Besides, the World Trade Center’s little Eichmanns had it coming:

Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East. And so in the minds of al-Qaeda, they’re not attacking innocent people. They’re attacking legitimate targets, people who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned.

When Sean asks Bennish if there is a distinction between terrorists killing innocent people and uniformed military men retaliating for their actions, Bennish responds, “You have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist.

Then he plays the ultimate atrocity card: “To many Native Americans, that [American] flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag.”

The 12-Minute Geography Hour

When asked how often these sweeping condemnations of the American Way occurred during class time, Sean Allen replied, “This went on everyday or every other day.” Sean told “Hannity and Colmes” host Sean Hannity last night, “About 20 percent [of class time] was dedicated to actual geography. About 80 percent was dedicated mostly to his personal politics and treating them as fact.”

“In class, I felt like he was trying to justify why al-Qaeda attacked us and that in their eyes, we were the real terrorists,” Sean continued. “He was a pretty intimidating teaching to confront, in his body languages, and the things that he said.” Earlier yesterday, Sean summed up his position, telling Neil Cavuto, “I think he’s really trying to get kids to think his way.”

Not Bennish’s First Offense

Upon hearing of the national backlash he’d inspired, the Cherry Creek School District promptly placed Bennish on “leave,” pending further investigation.

“We want to find out all the facts, what other students have to say about it, whether there have been other incidents,” school district spokeswoman Tustin Amole stated. Cherry Creek’s official statement on the matter agrees its first agenda item is to “Determine if this is an isolated incident or a pattern of behavior.

But Amole already knows the answer to this question, and revealed that fact to the Denver press:

Apparently, this is not the first time he has been in hot water over comments made in class, according to Amole. A few years ago, another student complained about remarks Bennish made in class. In that case, Bennish met with the parent and the school principal, and the issue was resolved without district intervention.

Denver-area media have had no trouble finding several such stories. Former student Derek Belloni, 18, told the Rocky Mountain News, “He is making interpretation as facts. He's preaching politics in geography class.”

“Brad,” a University of Miami (FL) student soon to enlist in the Marine Corps, told a Denver radio program when Bennish taught him American History in 2000-1, he used an extreme left-wing book as the text; his tests asked students to give examples of how American history is the story of white male imperialist oppression; and glowingly recounted personal tales of underage drinking, drug use, and premarital sex. (Brad vividly recalls Bennish’s explicit story of an amorous encounter in a cornfield five years after the fact.)

Thankfully, the school district’s statement concludes, “The district is in the process of identifying any personnel actions that may be necessary.” Only one comes to our minds….

Fire Bennish

In response to being placed on leave, Bennish has threatened to file a lawsuit first thing Friday morning. (Still future as of this writing.)

“I know about 10 federal judges who are more than willing to teach the Cherry Creek School District what the First Amendment is all about,” David Lane, Bennish’s lawyer, said yesterday. Lane – who was also Ward Churchill’s lawyer – derided school administrators as “scared little rabbits” for suspending the biased (non-)teacher. Lane said, “The nature of his class is to put out controversial ideas and let the students respond, to teach them to think critically.”

Discussing the disciplinary measure with local media, Cherry Creek spokeswoman Tustin Amole said: “After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view.” In another outlet, she reiterated, “It appears that they were inappropriate because they didn't contain the balance.” (“The” balance?)

Her comments prove both sides miss the obvious. In fact, the “nature” of Bennish’s class is to get students to think about geography: the latitude and longitude of Cairo, the height of Machu Picchu, the length of the Amazon, etc. (Links included for the benefit of Bennish’s students, who may not have been familiarized with these concepts in class.) No school district should continue to employ – at taxpayer expense – a teacher who consumes 80 percent of class time with off-topic material of any kind, much less foisting his extremist, personal political views on a captive audience of unemancipated minors who signed up to learn the verifiable data of geography.

Sean Allen says he does not want Bennish fired. He should. Bennish’s irresponsible political diatribes are robbing Allen and all his fellow students of an education. They would be equally out of place if they were about his favorite sports team or college fraternity, or if his political views were conservative or centrist. But it seems little accident the majority of reported transgressions against pedagogy are perpetrated by leftists.

The Leftist Indoctrination Campaign in Our K-12 Schools

This incident was apparently not the first offensive action by Bennish in class. It certainly was not the Left’s first foray into indoctrinating minors at taxpayer expense. To cite but a few such examples:

  • The Pacific Palisades High School English department intended to force 300 students to sit through a 105-minute lecture from far-leftist Ray McGovern, who told his underage audience Iraq was a “war for oil” and that Ariel Sharon ran President Bush’s foreign policy.
  • An American History teacher at Santa Monica High School branded America “a terrorist nation.” A visit by David Horowitz was first cancelled, then protested.
  • On February 13, 2003, Miller High School of Corpus Christi, Texas, required all students to attend a political rally held by presidential candidate Al Sharpton.
  • Many high school students have had to endure the one-sided presentations of Wheels for Justice, a group focused on Middle Eastern issues.

Even elementary school students are vulnerable to leftist proselytization. In 2003, after an eight-year-old boy wrote a paper saying he wanted to be a soldier like his grandfather, the boy’s second grade teacher snapped, “If you ever write anything like that again, you are going straight to the principal’s office.

This incident clearly illuminates the problem gripping many classrooms. Unfortunately, not all students have Sean’s courage – to record and document the offense, then expose the best disinfectant. Most acquiesce to the pressure to go-along and get-along, to smile and nod through the teacher’s political rants, regurgitate the teacher’s leftist bias on tests, learn nothing, and reach college prepared for four more years of the same.

The cure is clear: more students need to follow Sean’s lead, more K-12 schools need to form chapters of Parents and Students for Academic Freedom, and more state legislatures need to adopt the Academic Bill of Rights. And Jay Bennish should get his next opportunity to spout his extremist views as a columnist for Z magazine, not as a geography teacher paid by Colorado taxpayers.