Parker Rice, There Will Be Forgiveness

Parker Rice has withdrawn from Oklahoma University. He should have made the University expel him. The University would have had to present charges to Rice and give him a hearing. I don't know whether "leading a racist and exclusionary chant" is grounds for expulsion or not.

I don't think a public university can expel a student for protected speech. The University of Oklahoma is a public institution. It takes money from the government. In order for speech to lose it's protected status, there needs to be a true threat or incitement. Rice's chant didn't meet that criteria. Therefore, expulsion by the university is unconstitutional.

University of Oklahoma President David Boren says he wants to avoid the creation of a "hostile educational environment for others." How exactly does a racist chant create a "hostile environment?" Is the university going to ban the word "nigger?" OK, ban the word. Acknowledge that black people are a protected class. How many protected classes can be created?

Surely lesbians are oppressed. The word "dyke" is therefore banned. Homosexual men face marginalization. The word "faggot" must therefore be banned. Transexuals? Outliers! The word "tranny" is on the banned list. If an auto repair shop is doing business with the university and wants to continue the relationship, they can no longer use that offensive abbreviation. Women might insist the words "bitch," "slut," and "cunt" be outlawed.

Is Huckleberry Finn going to be banned? What about the thousands of rap songs that use the word "nigger?" I get that that is "their word," and that confers the right to use it. Who decides who will retain the right to use the word?

Another thing is, once a word is banned, it becomes seductive.

The offended mob is not appeased by Rice's withdrawal and public humiliation. There is a protest planned at Rice's parent's house this evening. The protest is being organized by a Dallas group called Next Generation Action Network. Hmm, that sounds very familiar to Al Sharpton's National Action Network. Could it be that Shakedown Al is the shot-caller here?

Parker Rice is six months removed from high school. How many people have got all their shit together at that age? Next Generation Action Network's Facebook page says that they demand "PUBLIC acknowledgement and apology" from Rice. His public shaming and abject humiliation up to this point is not enough? They are also "urging the Department of Justice to investigate ALL SAE chapters across the nation for racial discrimination and possible hate crimes in an attempt to shut down the ENTIRE fraternity."

There is no public accomodation for private institutions. If a fraternity wants to exclude anyone, for any reason, that is their right. A fraternity is not a public accomodation.

Next Generation Action Network's founder is Dominique R. Alexander. He looks like a nice enough fellow, from his picture. His bio describes him as ordained Minister at The True Love Missionary Baptist Church.

Since Alexander is an ordained Baptist minister, he must know that Jesus instructed us that "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says , ‘I repent,’ forgive him."

Reverend Alexander, I believe that Parker Rice has repented in his heart. Will you please forgive him, and instruct your followers do likewise?

A Good Ol' Fraternity Lynching

When I was in college, I wanted to be a lawyer. I wanted to become a defense attorney, because I believed that everybody is entitled to a defense. I have an instinct to defend the indefensible. This humanist desire surfaced early in founder John Adams' life, when he represented the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

Today I feel of kindred spirit with the members of Oklahoma University's Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. They were videotaped chanting a racist declaration on a bus trip, using the wording, "There will never be a nigger SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me."

The community has reacted with customary anguish. Students rallied against the fraternity. Many students taped their mouths shut and wrote the message "UNHEARD" on the tape. I don't know what that means. Maybe it means that they don't want to hear that someone doesn't like them. I wonder if any of them appreciate the irony of demonstrating against offensive speech by taping their mouths shut.

The national chapter of SAE suspended the Oklahoma chapter. I think that is appropriate. But it won't end there. The President of Oklahoma University has given the chapter until midnight tonight to pack their bags and leave the house. That seems a bit harsh. A landlord may give a tenant a Three-Day Notice to Perform Covenant or Quit premises if the tenant is causing damage or creating a nuisance. The short notice seems to be a gross violation of due process.

The nuisance created seems to be coming from the student body. Their threatening behavior has prompted the university to park police squad cars in front of the fraternity house. The campus group Unheard has planned "peaceful" protests on campus. Funny how those "peaceful" protests always culminate in civil disobedience, property damage and mass arrests.

But it won't end there. University President David Boren wants the students involved to be expelled. "I don't have much sympathy for them," he said. This incident is surely embarrassing to the students involved. The tape is going to follow them around everywhere, for the rest of their lives.

Some might argue that the shame of the tape's widespread distribution is punishment enough. It won't be. The entire pan-Hellenic community at Oklahoma has been summoned for diversity and sensitivity training at the request of David Boren.

In the South, lynching was often performed not just as extra-judicial punishment, but to send a warning. The message to black men was: know your place. Seems to me that this is figuratively happening to the SAE fraternity. Wikipedia says that lynching is done to "intimidate a minority group" and that it is "an extreme form of informal group social control."

I feel bad for those fraternity members involved. Their stupidity is going to be a millstone hung about their necks for the rest of their lives. The allegation of racism is enough for perpetual damnation. And there will be no trial, just punishment.

Netanyahu's Address

Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to AIPAC today. Tomorrow he will address a joint session of Congress. He told listeners that he didn't intend "to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both."

Bibi, the feeling is not mutual. Barack Hussein Obama holds you in utter contempt. So does everyone in his Administration. Last year, an administration official called Netanyahu chickenshit. The official who made the comment bravely hid behind the veil of anonymity.

The year before that, Secretary of State John Kerry threatened a third intifada if Israel didn't "resolve the issue of settlements." In other words, to withdraw to the 1948 borders.

Obama's Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has advocated for American military intervention in Judea and Samaria. To protect the Palestinians from the Israelis. She referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a situation that "does require external intervention."

A story that broke yesterday involved Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli warplanes should they attempt to strike Iran. According to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Netanyahu told Kerry that Israel was planning the attack.

Reuters' Jeff Mason interviewed Obama today. Why didn't Mason ask Obama about this?

In any case, the report was not surprising. I have been reading reports for years of Obama officials warning Israel from using Iraqi airspace. One nation that has reportedly granted overflight privileges to Israeli warplanes is Saudi Arabia. If Israel did attack Iran, Saudi Arabia would be cheering vigorously from the sidelines.

If and when Iran does consummate its nuclear ambitions, the Saudis will buy their own nuclear arsenal from Pakistan.

That Obama is so defensive about Netanyahu addressing Congress indicates that Obama knows that any agreement with Iran is a bad deal. If it were a good deal, Obama could just point to the agreement. The interim agreement gives in to Iran's demand that they have the "right" to enrich uranium. It says nothing about Iranian research into advanced centrifuges.

The interim agreement does not limit Iran's construction on its heavy-water reactor at Arak. This reactor will produce enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons each year when complete. And the interim agreement does not restrict Iran's ballistic missile program.

As of this writing, fifty-four Democrat lawmakers are going to boycott Netanyahu's address. Senator Tim Kaine said that "there is no reason to schedule this speech before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17." The deadline for conditions of the interim agreement being met is March 24. That reason enough for you, Tim?

Elizabeth Warren just announced that she will be boycotting Netanyahu's speech, as well. Obama is whipping them good. Even money says Obama has something disruptive planned. Obama used Code Pink to try to arrest Henry Kissinger. At this point nothing would surprise me.

Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine

My blood is still boiling over the FCC's Net Neutrality Vote. I haven't felt this grifted since Obamacare was voted into law. At least Obamacare was an act of Congress. Obama's royal court believes they only need Congress for the power of the purse. Everything else can be done by royal decree.

They still haven't released the contents of the new regulations. That this fact annoys me, makes me some kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist, according to the Washington Post. Blogger Brian Fung said yesterday that conservatives ought to calm down, because it's "been less than 24 hours" since the vote. Fung felt it necessary to put the word "secrecy" in scare quotes, and called demands for transparency "nonsense."

I might be able to defer to the judgement of a career bureaucrat like FCC spokesperson Kim Hart, who said, "the final document is not available until staff makes final edits." I refuse to grant deference to a rule-making process born in secrecy and opacity.

So Net Neutrality will remain a tabula rasa for awhile longer. That allows everyone to project their own desires upon the regulations. The motivations for the architects of Net Neutrality could not be clearer.

Many organizations are gloating over the FCC vote. Like Fight for the Future, who believes that "copyright and patent laws are outdated." I don't disagree, but don't think that justifies piracy.

Demand Progress is also exulting in its "victory." Demand Progress is an organization that opposes mass surveillance. Giving the federal government complete regulatory control over the internet is going to end mass surveillance how, exactly?

The incongruously named organization Free Press also did a victory lap. They flew a banner towed behind a plane around Comcast's Philadelphia headquarters Thursday. The banner's message "Comcast: Don’t Mess With the Internet. #SorryNotSorry."

Free Press was founded by an avowed Marxist named Robert McChesney, who has said that the ultimate goal of Net Neutrality is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

This is why I have come to the conclusion that many of the supporters of Net Neutrality believe that the rules will enable a sort of backdoor Fairness Doctrine over internet content. Free Press advocates that "diverse voices" are represented in the media. That is Progressive signalling for stifling of conservative opinions.

The Fairness Doctrine was FCC policy from 1949 to 1987. It required licensed broadcasters who presented controversial public matters to do so in a way that was equitable and balanced. It is no small coincidence that Rush Limbaugh's radio show began national syndication a year after the FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine. Progressives have never given up the fight, one that ultimately stifles free speech.

Jihadi Jake And Elwood

Just riffing on news that Al-Shabab has urged its fanatical homicidal maniacal followers to attack shopping malls in North America. I have no idea whether this is punching up or punching down. It is intended to be satire. I will probably blog on something real later.

Dancing With The Stars Fumbles

ABC's hit show Dancing With The Stars has announced their celebrity contestants for the season beginning March 16th. There are some intriguing selections and couple head-scratchers.

Willow Shields, who played Primrose Everdeen in The Hunger Games is going to be dancing with Mark Ballas. Shields is easy on the eyes but from what I've seen of her acting work, her oeuvre is to look as helpless and vulnerable as possible, while speaking as little as possible.

Noah Galloway will be dancing with Sharna Burgess. Noah is an Iraq war veteran and double amputee. All respect for a man who volunteered to serve and sacrificed so much.

Robert Herjavec from ABC's television show Shark Tank will be dancing with Kym Johnson. Shameless cross-promotion.

Riker Lynch will be partnered with Allison Holker. Lynch was a cast member of Glee, and is cousins with Julianne and Derek Hough. And he was named after a notorious prison. Talk about appropriation of gangster culture. No, his brother is not named, "Attica."

Charlotte McKinney, the topless girl in the Carl's Jr. commercial, will be dancing with Keo Motsepe. She is the dank. Her name is evocative of radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon, whom I'm sure would not approve of McKinney's objectification.

An artist known as Redfoo will dance with Emma Slater. Redfoo's real name is Stefan Kendal Gordy. Apparently he is a rapper, singer and DJ. I never heard of him. I'm old.

Suzanne Somers will be dancing with Tony Dovolani. Gross. Are we going to hear about her daily vaginal hormone injections? All I'm going to hear while I'm watching the show with my wife will be, "she looks great. I wonder how old she is?" She's sixty-eight.

Michael Sam will be dancing with Peta Murgatroyd. Heavens to Murgatroyd! Why didn't the show's producers partner him with a man? Sam is repelled by women; how are they going to sell subliminal sexual tension? By repackaging his misogyny?

Yes I said misogyny. Misogyny was practically invented by homosexual men. In the same way misandry is the home province of lesbians.

The show will package Michael Sam as the first gay NFL player. He isn't in the NFL. He was cut by the Rams before the season began. He claimed to be totally focused on football, yet he secretly signed a contract with Oprah Winfrey to film a reality show during training camp. He was picked up by Dallas and placed on the practice squad, but was waived on October 21.

He never caught on because he's a "tweener." His position was linebacker, but he's too slow for an NFL linebacker. At 261, he is too light to move to the defensive line. Nevertheless, he contends that the reason he isn't playing in the NFL is because he is gay.

He told TMZ "I was the SEC Defensive Player of the Year last year ... so I don't think it had to do with talent." That was in college. If winning awards for college performance was a predictor of NFL ability, then Heisman Trophy winners Tim Tebow, Troy Smith, Matt Leinart and Jason White would all have Super Bowl rings by now. None of them are even on NFL rosters.

Everybody interested in social justice was rooting for Sam. His jersey became one of the biggest sellers. The only thing worse than his weak play was his behavior. Not his homosexual behavior. His being an ass.

So thank you, Dancing With The Stars, for ruining one of the few shows that my wife and I could enjoy together. If you guys needed a football player, why not Ray Rice? That guy will create some interesting chemistry with his dance partner! Here he is, demonstrating a dance routine he calls, "knocking the bitch out."

Patty Sacheen Littlefeather Arquette

The Academy Awards show has become unwatchable. They need four hours to recognize the best sound mixing, costume design and documentary short subject? I think not. And there were constant references to social justice themes. Neil Patrick Harris, from what I saw, added nothing entertaining. He was just visual reference to the gay rights movement.

What passes for the civil rights movement was a dominant theme. John Legend made a reference to Ferguson and told the crowd, "there are more black men incarcerated in this country now than there were under slavery in 1850." I won't even fact-check this one. It's a false equivalence. Those incarcerated men were subject to due process of law.

Patricia Arquette stole the show by delivering an acceptance speech in the finest tradition of Vanessa Redgrave ("Zionist hooligans") and Sacheen Littlefeather. Unfortunately this year, there was no Paddy Chayefsky to give a rebuttal. Chayefsky once rebutted Redgrave by saying, "I'm sick and tired of people exploiting the occasion of the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal political propaganda."

"To Miss Redgrave," he continued, "her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple 'thank you' would have sufficed."

Arquette's missive at this year's ceremony was about economic justice, saying "It is our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America!"

I can't help but think of the irony of this demand coming so close to the heart of Hollywood, which experiences sex discrimination several orders of magnitude worse than the real world. Prediction: Patricia Arquette will spend years in the wilderness, hoping her phone will ring, but it won't.

This is all just battlespace preparation for the Hillary 2016 campaign. The New York Times is advancing the concept of the so-called motherhood gap. Juliet Lapidos used Arquette's speech as justification for an article entitled Patricia Arquette and the Motherhood Gap.

Lapidos used cherry-picked statistics offered up by Third Way. Third Way is a think tank that describes themselves as moderate and centrist but is actually made of of former Clinton staffers, former Obama staffers, and Democratic lawmakers. The statistics purport to show that "women with children are paid less, on average, relative to men than women without children."

This is a statistic that should surprise no one.

One flaw in this statistic is that it measures the total aggregate income of women with children, and compares it to the total aggregate income of men with children. Women with children are likely to form households with a male wage-earner. Why not compare relative household incomes?

Another thing these statistics ignore is the prevalence of choice and opportunity costs. Women by and large choose careers that offer flexibility, in fields that interest them. Let me know when there are more women plumbers than male, and when male social workers outnumber female.

Opportunity Cost acknowledges that resources are limited and finite. A person going to college and majoring in Gender Studies is paying a hidden cost in future earnings that will never be realized had they majored in Chemical Engineering. And a woman choosing to have children and bond with them is also paying this hidden cost. The time she spends raising her child is time that she may not be able to use to further her career. That's how gender roles work; that's how we evolved.

Do Not Let Your Kid Near This Woman

When I was growing up, my father would always tell me that he "wanted me to be happy." I always assumed that most parents want their kid to be happy.

I think of happy as being glad for what you have. If you like what you have, then you will be happy.

Sally Kohn thinks that her child's happiness is "some variation on our own lives." And because Sally Kohn is a lesbian, that is what she wants for her daughter.

"I want my kid to be gay," she writes. Does your daughter know that she will disappoint you if she isn't gay?

Kohn believes in putting her lesbian imprint upon her daughter right away. Her daughter is six. When her daughter "plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad." I find it hard to believe her "gentle" "reminders" aren't in the form of "they could be a mom and a mom."

Kohn has "bought every picture book featuring gay families" and has "most of the nontraditional- gender- role books as well — about the princess who likes to fight dragons and the boy who likes to wear dresses."

There is a term for adults who practice behavioral conditioning on children so that the children may fit the needs of the adult. It's known as grooming.

Kohn's core belief is vividly illustrated when she says, "It’s more widely acceptable to be gay in America today, but that’s not the same as being desirable." This is the crux of the whole gay-rights movement. They want to raise their kids without their kids being stigmatized. So homosexual marriage cannot be seen as "just as good." It has to be thought of as "better."

I hope Kohn gets to a place in her heart where whatever her daughter decides, it will be perfectly acceptable. I hope that her daughter fulfills all her natural potential, whatever that is. And I almost think she will be better off as a lesbian. She lives in a world where there are no desirable heterosexual behaviors being modeled.

Yes, I hope she becomes a lesbian. The kind who likes to fly Apache helicopters in close-air support missions for the Army. I think we already have enough activists, gender-studies professors and Title IX coordinators.

Chicago Jesus Thrice Denied

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker got a taste of what life as Republican front-runner will be like. In lieu of journalistic ethics, fairness or objectivity, mainstream outlets play a constant game of "gotcha."

If and when someone makes a statement critical of President Obama, or any protected class (but I repeat myself), the media swarms every Republican and demands they refute the statement. The person uttering the offending statement is made out to be the leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani, leader of the Republican Party.

The behavior of the media reminds me of the way white blood cells attack foreign invaders. Protect the host! Form pus and ooze! It is noteworthy that an elevated white blood cell count is a possible sign of cancer. I will say it: The mainstream media is a cancer on the body politic.

The latest media swarm occurred in the wake of Rudy Giuliani's remarks about President Obama, saying "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America." Rudy, may I quote a line from Glengarry Glen Ross? You're supposed to help us, not to fuck us up.

CNN called the remarks "ugly, thoughtless and divisive." In other words, just what they need! Now they can roll out their most dependable fallacy: The Fallacy of Composition. They will convince Americans that what is true of Rudy Giuliani is true of every single Republican.

Scott Walker has been tarred with the same brush. A typical headline reads Scott Walker insists he has no idea whether Obama is a Christian or not just hours after saying he doesn't know if Obama loves his country. ABC's George Stephanopoulos couldn't wipe the smirk off his face when he reported that Walker "said he doesn't know if Obama is a Christian."

The phrasing of these remarks is purposeful. "Doesn't know" equals "doubts." Walker's remarks were totally taken out of context.

Walker was repeatedly asked by the media to affirm or deny Giuliani's remarks. After laying siege for days, the most damning statement the media got from Walker was "You should ask the president what he thinks about America. I've never asked him so I don't know." Walker should have answered that he wouldn't comment on an irrelevant question. He left an opening. He'll get better.

The media legions also pestered Walker to answer whether he thought Obama was a Christian. Walker said, "You've asked me to make statements about people that I haven't had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?" Thus, "how would I know?" straw can be spun into "doubts President is a Christian" gold.

Meanwhile mainstream outlets have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to report on Clinton Global Initiative accepting millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments. The body politic appears immune to conflicts of interest, and allows Clinton to defend the contributions on the grounds that she hasn't openly declared whether she's running. "Should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the Foundation's policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate."

Border Evaporates

The Friday afternoon news dump included an item from the New York Times. There was a ruling by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. He ordered the Obama Administration to stop detaining women and children who were caught crossing the border illegally.

The Times frames this decision as "finding that the administration has been too hard on border enforcement." That's a good one. That's like calling Obama the Deporter-In-Chief, because Obama doesn't deport anyone. His administration counts turn-backs at the border as "deportations." I wonder if the Times is aware that Obama wants to give every illegal immigrant a work permit, social security card, and Earned Income Tax Credits (welfare).

The reason we had a surge of Central American immigrants last year is because they found a way to game the system. Just show up at the border, claim you are a refugee seeking asylum, and you are in. And it doesn't need to be for political persecution anymore. You can claim that you are a victim of domestic violence. You can claim that your gangster son's friends are after you.

Judge Boasberg waved his hand and determined that none of the 66,000 "family units" (single mothers with minor children) nor any of the 57,000 unaccompanied minors (many of them members of M13 gangs) posed any flight risk or national security risk. He ruled that anyone showing up to the border and claiming "credible fear" could be waved through with nothing more than a court date.

Judge Boasberg was the same judge who in 2012 denied the public's right to view government photos of a deceased Osama Bin Laden on national security grounds. Photos of a dead Bin Laden might harm our national security, but importing Honduran gang members won't? Boasberg was appointed by President Obama in 2011. This lawsuit by the ACLU is nothing more than jurisdiction-shopping.

The reason Boasberg gave for the order was that, in his opinion, the detentions were being done solely "for the purpose of deterring future immigration." He justified this decision based on Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson's remarks that the detention policy was devised to send a clear message to migrants, that "If you come, it is likely you will be detained and sent back."

Boasberg wants immigration authorities to consider each asylum case to determine if the migrants would present risks to public safety if they were released while their cases moved through the courts. That is impossible. Asylum requests from Central America doubled last year, and the year before that. The system is overwhelmed, and they are going to be turned loose, and we have only the hope that they don't skip their court dates.

And if a hard-core terrorist or two can pass as a minor, they'll have to be let in and released.

The people this really hurts are those who are really fleeing religious or political persecution, like foreign born CIA contractors helping the United States destroy radical Islam. No asylum for you! We have a well-coached Guatemalan woman who knew the secret phrase "credible fear" and "drug violence."

Countering Violent Extremism

The Obama Administration wrapped up its three day White House Summit On Countering Violent Extremism with remarks by the President yesterday. It was Barack Obama at his best: He has the uncanny ability to see every facet of a problem and appeal to the emotion of everyone's interest. It's just too bad that this is the best he has to offer. When situations require leadership, he offers ambiguity. When people desire resolve, he offers equivocation.

Everything about this summit invoked ambiguity and evasion. Can any two people agree on exactly what "violent extremism" means? Glenn Katon, legal director for Muslim Advocates, was on NPR yesterday, and said the whole summit played into a fallacy of "referring to specific incidents of violence committed by Muslims," because, he said, that "only about 6 percent of acts of violent extremism in this country are carried out by Muslims."

I understand why the President avoids the use of the phrase "radical Islam" in favor of "violent extremism." He said that, "Muslim communities have a responsibility" to police the behavior of its worst actors. Very true, but he never once uses the word "reform" in his speech.

Islam is a religion that is badly in need of reform. Jordan is one of our allies in the war against the Islamic State. According to Pew, seventy-one percent of Jordanians believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land. Of those, eighty-two percent believe the punishment for leaving Islam should be the death penalty.

These are the type of people who believe thieves should have a hand cut off, or adulterers stoned, or in giving religious judges jurisdiction over family or property disputes. These are societies that do not believe in Western jurisprudence and due process. Obama is deceiving himself and his listeners when he says that "the essential ingredient to real and lasting stability and progress is not less democracy; it’s more democracy."

Democracy requires the involvement of an informed electorate. How can the electorate become informed when more books are translated into Spanish every year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years?

While Obama avoids using the word "reform," he does use the word "grievance" seven times. According to Obama, there are political, economic and historical injustices being borne by Muslims. Obama said "that there’s a strain of thought that... the Muslim world has suffered historical grievances, sometimes that's accurate, that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy."

If colonialism alone explained violent extremism, then India and the Philippines should be major sponsors of terrorism. It seems as though Obama will never stop apologizing for colonialism, and this wording comes close to providing justification of violence that flows from a history of colonialism.

I think this is edging closer to the root source of Obama's equivocation. I'm not one of those people who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim. I don't think he's a secret anything, including Christian. I think he will drag the family to church for the cameras during election season, but that's about it. Instead I believe Obama is more informed by a fear of racism.

I see a lot of comments on Twitter and social media that equate Islamophobia with racism. It is pointless to mention to these commentators that practitioners of Islam come from all races. There is a strain of recent historical scholarship that points to World War Two propaganda as inherently racist, and implies that American prosecution of the war against the Japanese was driven by racial hatred.

They point to posters that deployed racist stereotypes to help instill fear of the Japanese and rally American popular will in the war effort against them. When Tom Hanks was being interviewed about his HBO miniseries The Pacific, he was quoted as saying "back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods.

This is Hanks' way of apologizing for American conduct during the war, a war not fought by competing ideologies, but by emphasizing racial fears. Obama also wanted to apologize for American conduct during World War Two. He wanted to visit Hiroshima and apologize for the United States use of the atomic bomb, but was dissuaded by the Japanese government. And today, our Commander in Chief says that it is a "misconception" that there we are engaged in "some sort of clash of civilizations." Then stop sending our troops into harm's way.