June 4, 2015

In Austin, outrage over city-sponsored seminar on female leadership

Female-majority Austin City Council rejects expert's assertion that men are from Mars, women from Venus

By David Paulin

Originally published at The American Thinker

It was supposed to be a training seminar for city employees on how to deal with a new leadership dynamic: a female-dominated City Council.

Instead, the seminar in hip and left-leaning Austin, Texas, has triggered a political brouhaha resulting in one high-level resignation and an ongoing investigation – all after word leaked that management experts at the city-sponsored seminar dared to say that woman process information differently than men; view issues differently; and need to be treated differently.

One expert was widely quoted as suggesting that women tend to ask too many questions (or at least more than men do) in part because they dislike dealing with financial minutia provided in memos before meetings. Members of the female-dominated City Council were outraged. Defending themselves, two management experts said their remarks comprised just a fraction of their presentations – and were taken out of context and misconstrued.

But no matter.

Last Monday, Assistant City Manager Anthony Snipes resigned after having been placed on leave. Earlier, he had written an abject apology, saying he was unaware that sexist comments would be made at the seminar he organized. But it apparently was not enough to save his career.

Coincidentally, Snipes's resignation came on the heels of a skit on “Late Night with Conan O'Brien” that lampooned the seminar.

Austin's left-leaning and humorless female leaders must have seen red at being lampooned by O'Brien, given that they are so much like him: hip, well-educated, and left-leaning. Interestingly, the skit itself played upon amusing stereotypes of women; and it drew a strange moral equivalence – suggesting that politically incorrect humor about women is on par with crude stereotypes of Jews. For the skit's final punch line, a female actress observed: "They finally asked a woman to administer the sexism workshop. I would never trust a man to get this right, almost as if I'd never trust a Jew." O'Brien and his laughing audience members sure have a strange sense of humor.

The training session, to be sure, had started with the best of intentions. Not long ago, Austin voted in a new 10-member city council -- one composed of seven women.

Men had traditionally dominated the City Council; and so city managers thought it a good idea to arrange a training seminar focusing on how city employees should interact with female elected officials, some of them former activists. Its title gave no hint of controversy: "The Changing Dynamics in Governance; Women Leading in Local Government."

Jonathan Allen, the former city manager of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, was one of the featured speakers and made the most widely cited comments. He left his position in Lauderdale Lakes last April under unexplained circumstances and, like Snipes and Ott, is part of National Forum for Black Public Administrators. Race, however, has not been an issue in the controversy (at least not in any public discussion).

"Do men and women speak the same language? And I'm going to tell you up front -- no," said Allen, who provided anecdotes about his talkative daughter, and how female elected officials whom he had advised were less interested in financial arguments and minutia than in impacts on the community.

“If you use or attempt to use the same communication techniques in management techniques that you use in a predominately male dominated environment, you will be making a serious error in your professional development,” Allen explained

Another speaker was business consultant Miya Burt-Stewart, a PhD who cited the philosophies described in the non-fiction self-help book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.”
"We understand that we are different, we act differently. What's most important sometimes (all of it is important to us, let me say that) but just in terms of how we receive it or how we want to act on it differs," Burt-Stewart said.

To be sure, neither Allen nor Burt-Stewart ever stated that woman were unqualified to hold leadership positions or incapable of doing a fine job, even though they may not act, think or function (for better or worse) as men do.

Interestingly, the seminar was held two months ago -- in late March – yet it was only reported upon two weeks ago in an Austin American-Statesman blog and then on social media. Neither Ott nor Snipes or any council members attended the seminar. Rather, it was attended by some 70 city employees, mostly women. The attendees, in other words, were ordinary city employees; and interestingly, none of them were apparently offended by the handful of supposedly sexist remarks they heard. The uproar only started when male and female political elites and left-leaning female council members got wind of the remarks. Allen's tone, to be sure, may have come across to some as condescending, but his message that men and women are different in some ways was hardly an earth-shaking message to reasonable people.

One new council member, Ellen Troxclair, was nevertheless quoted as saying: “I'm not someone who is generally a ‘P.C. police’ and jumps on every little thing that could have been taken out of context. So I did go back and watch the full video, but I only became more and more frustrated, and more and more offended.”

The controversy is threatening the career of City Manager Marc Ott, who launched an investigation on how the seminar was allowed to go forward. He expects to issue his report in the coming week.
Ott also wrote an apologetic memo to Mayor Steve Adler and council members, stating he was unaware of what would be said at the seminar, and that the controversial comments were “not reflective in any way of our culture, philosophy, or approach toward managing this organization, nor our approach toward partnering with the City Council.”

Leftists and feminists tend to be a humorless bunch; so more heads may roll as things play out. Political re-eduction courses are not yet an option for men who cause offense in a female-led government.
Austin's female leaders, incidentally, seem blind to a double standard at play. Imagine, for instance, if the seminar had focused on the positive and negative attributes of male management. Would female council members demand that heads roll over that?

Probably not. In their left-leaning worldview, men are oppressors in the battle of the sexes, and so no jokes or negative generalizations about their management styles are over the top. The same probably goes for nasty remarks about Jews of both genders -- at least if the skit on Conan O'Brien's show is anything to go by.

May 20, 2015

In Texas, black race hustlers throw white liberal under the bus

August 23, 2014

Beaten to Death at McDonald's

Black thug culture, murder under the Golden Arches, and a $27 million negligence verdict

Originally published at FrontPage Magazine and The American Thinker

(Listen to Houston radio talk-show host Michael Berry talk about this article during an interview with Dallas attorney Chris Hamilton -- click here.)

By David Paulin

To the four clean-cut college freshman out on a double date, it had seemed like a typical McDonald's: spanking clean, well-lighted, and safe. It was in a good neighborhood too, right next to Texas A&M University in College Station -- a campus known for its friendly atmosphere and official down-home greeting: “howdy”

Shortly after 2 a.m that Sunday, they pulled into the parking lot of so-called “University McDonald's”  – and beheld a scene unlike anything portrayed in all those wholesome McDonald's television commercials. Before them, hundreds of young black males were loitering about, some without shirts.

Other local residents -- the more cynical and world-weary, both whites and most blacks -- would have taken one look at the crowd and driven off, dismissing many of the young and posturing black males as thugs. But not them: innocent white kids from the suburbs. They presumed this was post-racial America -- and that they were in an easy-going college town.

Twenty minutes later, two of them were dead.

Incredibly, the race of the assailants was scrubbed from local news coverage; and utterly missing from tersely written wire-service stories about a Brazos County jury's whopping $27 million negligence verdict on July 30 against “University McDonald's” – an outlet owned by the Oak Brook, Illinois-based fast-food giant. What the media considered unmentionable nevertheless loomed over a riveting seven-day trial, which came amid the growing phenomena of black-on-white violence -- unprovoked attacks on whites and black mob violence like the so-called “knock-out game."

Chris Hamilton, lead lawyer of the small Dallas firm that humbled the corporate giant, was asked, during a phone interview, how many reporters had even bothered to inquire about the race of the assailants during the many interviews he gave.

“You're the only one,” he replied.

Race, of course, was irrelevant to the high-stakes negligence trial that revolved around McDonald's lack of on-site security and corporate responsibility. Yet shortly before the trial, Hamilton hinted at the issue of race – suggesting that two very different worlds were colliding at University McDonald's during its after-midnight hours – a mix that was potentially volatile. The upcoming trial, he told a local television reporter, was not only about seeking justice for his clients -- but about the public's need “to know what's really going on at McDonald's: what the risks are; what the dangers are of sending your kids there, particularly after midnight."

His extensive pretrial investigation – numerous depositions, pathology reports, and an in-depth analysis of police records – told a story that was heartbreaking and infuriating, and that until the trial had remained largely out of pubic view as the case was handled by College Station Police, Brazos County District Attorney Jarvis Parsons, and an asleep-at-the-wheel news media.

Apart from legal arguments over alleged corporate negligence, the high-profile trial offered a shocking view of how a thuggish black subculture flourished at University McDonald's. The blame could be laid squarely upon McDonald's black managers, and on the failure of higher-ups in McDonald's to ensure patrons, both black and white, were safe during late-night hours – an increasingly lucrative market for the fast-food giant.

Beaten to Death

For the two young couples, the evening had started at a country-western concert at “Hurricane Harry's” in College Station's entertainment district; and afterward, just after 2 a.m. on Sunday, February 18, 2012 -- a quick trip to nearby “University McDonald's” as it's widely known.

Parking his Toyota 4Runner, Denton James Ward, age 18, stepped down from the big SUV with Tanner Giesen, then 19 years old. The two friends from Flower Mound, an affluent Dallas suburb, headed to the McDonald's bathroom; Ward wore his cowboy hat. The girls -  Lauren Bailey Crisp and Samantha Bean, both 19 – took the SUV to the drive-through.

Both inside and out, University McDonald's was bustling. But it definitely wasn't the usual daytime crowd – clean-cut and mostly white “Aggies” as A&M's students are known. Instead, up to 400 black males were loitering about the parking lot, a police officer later estimated. Inside, it was mostly a black crowd too: a large number of black males were loitering about, many without food. Some were shirtless.

This was the usual after-midnight crowd on Saturdays and Sundays at the 24-hour McDonald's. And unbeknownst to the two couples – and many in College Station – this McDonald's was a major late-night trouble spot.

Police were constantly responding to late-night fights, assaults, and disturbances among huge crowds that were mostly black – a problem one top police official called a “drain on resources.” Most of the reported incidents – some 200 in the three years preceding Ward and Crisp's deaths – involved black-on-black violence by gang bangers and, according to one police officer, members of black college fraternities. One police report described an unidentified man's head getting bashed against a curb. White patrons appeared to be especially susceptible and at risk – and when they were attacked, the blows were particularly vicious. The hours of 2-to-3 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays were especially volatile, with at least a dozen fights and assaults reported during those hours in the year preceding the couple's deaths.

For Ward and Giesen, the trouble started seconds after exiting McDonald's front door. “You're in the wrong neck of the woods, cowboys,” Giesen recalled a young black male saying.

Unwittingly, they'd blundered into a highly-charged situation. Shortly before they'd arrived, two black males had gotten into a loud argument inside the restaurant. A gun was brandished. But manager Lindsey Ives didn't call the police. She told the men to take their dispute outside.
In an instant, a bloodthirsty mob was upon them.

A fist slammed into Giesen's face. Ward tried to break-up the altercation, according to trial testimony. Instead, he suffered a brutal mob stomping lasting several minutes. Some 20 young black males closed in – mercilessly kicking and punching his head and body and even jumping on him, witnesses said. Giesen was knocked unconscious.

An athletic young man -- 5-foot-6 and 163 pounds – Ward had a handsome face framed by a mop of rusty brown hair. But after the beating, one witness -- a retired U.S. Marine and one of a few white customers – said Ward's face was “really messed up”; was “broken” and “mushy” and “just did not look natural.”

Bean and Crisp, both 19, rounded the corner of the drive-through to see the mob stomping. The horrified and frightened young women jumped out of the SUV screaming for it to stop. Crisp, Ward's girlfriend, even rushed into the melee, according to trial testimony. Blood poured from Ward's face. Some nearby good-Samaritans, including a few black females, helped the frantic teens lift their dates into the 4Runner's back seat; Ward was unable to speak or walk. Danisha Stern, a trial witness, then told them to “get out of there . . . it’s not safe.”

Immediately, the terrified girls took that advice -- rather than waiting for police. Bean, Giesen's date, took the wheel with Crisp occupying the front passenger seat. Speeding away, Bean made a frantic across-town dash for an emergency room. She worried somebody from the McDonald's mob might follow and run her off the road.

Ward was drifting in and out of consciousness. Blood was everywhere. Fearing he was slipping away, Crisp frantically climbed into the back seat, kneeling on the floorboard to do what she could -- pushing him back into his seat when he slumped forward. They had been dating three months. The girls were “freaking out,” Giesen recalled. “I remember lots of screaming and yelling going on.”
Then – about 10 minutes after speeding away from University McDonald's – Bean ran a red light. The 4Runner was hit broadside by a Chevy Silverado pick-up -- then spun violently and crashed into a light pole. Ward and Crisp were pronounced dead at the scene; Bean and the Silvarado's five occupants were uninjured. Police initially thought Ward and Crisp had died in the crash, and they had considered charging Bean. But pathologists at the negligence trial, both for the plaintiffs and McDonald's, agreed Ward was beaten to death -- the fatal kicks and punches delivered to the lower back of his head and chin.

The mob at McDonald's grew into a frenzy after the couples fled. A police officer arriving at the scene, five minutes later, grabbed his AR-15 assault rifle when he stepped out of his patrol car – fearing he was amid a full-blown riot. It was, he recalled, like “scenes that we have seen multiple times at that McDonald’s.”

Crisp, a dark-haired beauty from Dripping Springs, a suburb of Austin, wanted to be a nurse. She was a biology major at local Blinn College as was Bean, a resident of College Station. Ward, also a student at the junior college, was set to transfer to Texas A&M the next year to study industrial engineering. He had an all-American background in high school: letters in football and baseball; Little League umpire; and a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He and Crisp were from large families.

Giesen was briefly treated at an emergency room; his abdomen bore a boot print. He now suffers bouts of amnesia due to brain trauma.

In College Station, nobody dared to ask if a "hate crime" had possibly occurred. But Stern, the black good-Samaritan, testified that the black mob had piled on Ward in part because he was white; or as she explained: "He was trying to save his friend or stop the attacks...targeted at his friend. And he was a white male so I guess any -- anything that was -- anybody that was not helping the fight, like, adding to the injury or whatever, was seen as an opponent or something, you know."

Police made only one arrest, charging Marcus Jamal Jones – known to friends as "Plucky” -- in the mob attack. Without outdoor security cameras and uncooperative witnesses, it was no doubt hard to make a case. Last March, Plucky pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and served a 90-day jail sentence.

Minutes after the mob attack, the 6-foot-2 Plucky entered the McDonald's without a shirt. “We was fight'en,” he was heard to say. Earlier in the evening, he'd said he was looking for a fight, witnesses reported.

Playing the race card

It was Plucky who introduced the word “nigg-r” into the case. After his arrest, he told police that seconds before Ward and Giesen were attacked, somebody had said “nigg-r.” But he admitted he didn't know who'd uttered the epithet – or even if the person was black or white. During the trial, he changed his story, claiming Giesen had uttered the epithet. But Giesen denied using a racial slur and identified Plucky as the person who'd remarked, “You're in the wrong neck of the woods, cowboys."
Interestingly, Plucky got a job with a McDonald's supplier, Mid-South Baking Company in Byran, Texas, three months before the trial -- and before his epiphany that Giesen was the person who'd said “nigg-r.”

Why was University McDonald's so popular among black gang bangers and black fraternity members? Carlos Butler, the outlet's black general manager, could take credit for that. An aspiring hip-hop artist, he hosted large hip-hop concerts attracting some 1,500 people -- and after those events many of the black hip-hoppers headed to University McDonald's. 

Interestingly, Butler told a police detective he always had “a lot of security” at his hip-hop events.Yet at University McDonald's, Butler had no off-duty police officer providing security -- even on nights that the hip-hop and gangsta crowd showed up in large numbers. Cost for an off-duty cop – a mere $100. Police had told Butler such a late-night security measure, in use at other nearby 24-hour outlets, could stop trouble before it started.

The all-white jury -- eight women and four men – took only four hours to render their $27 million judgment: $16 million for Ward's parents; $11 million for Crisp's.

According to a recent article in The Eagle, a daily paper in College Station, the problems at University McDonald's persist. Lawyers for McDonald's have vowed to appeal. They are sticking to their argument that poor choices made by the two couples -- namely their underage drinking and Bean's reckless driving -- were responsible for Ward and Bean's deaths. McDonald's definitely took the negligence case seriously, though. During opening arguments, it had 12 lawyers at the defense table. Hamilton handled the contingency-fee case with two associates – nearly 40 percent of the legal talent in a firm of eight lawyers. “They tried to bury us in paperwork and money,” he remarked.

Parents and relatives of Ward and Crisp attended the trial, but on Hamilton's advice sat outside the courtroom except when testifying about how the deaths of their children had affected them. They are not giving interviews. Hamilton, however, said they felt vindicated that the jury had rejected the blame-the-victim strategy of McDonald's lawyers. Marshall Rosenberg, lead lawyer for McDonald's, did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The media's handling of this case was no surprise: political correctness rules in America's newsrooms. But imagine a hypothetical crime: two clean-cut black couples go into University McDonald's during the daytime – and are viciously attacked by a mob of whites. An international media circus would erupt. Big-time journalist from all over the world would descend on College Station to deal with the deplorable state of America's race relations caused by bigoted whites. President Obama would weigh in with a few comments about America's racial sins; and Attorney General Eric Holder -- just like with the Ferguson disturbances -- would travel to College Station, where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be leading protest marches.

But the narrative they're promoting is false.

It obscures where most of the hate is coming from. Crime statistics have long reveled the real problem: high levels of black-on-black violence, followed by black-on-white violence and mob attacks -- and the latter two phenomena have been increasing at an alarming rate, underscoring deep pathologies in a growing black-thug subculture -- even as liberals in the mainstream media and Washington are unwilling to acknowledge this fact.

The late Ray Kroc, the legendary McDonald's entrepreneur and CEO, must be rolling over in his grave over what's happening. The hood has expanded its turf in the America he loved – and now even hangs out under the Golden Arches.

July 8, 2014

Why Presbyterians took up the 'Palestinian Cause'

The church of the old WASP establishment and many U.S. presidents now embraces an odd mix of Christianity, Marxism, and the work of Edward Said

Originally published at FrontPage Magazine

By David Paulin
What has happened to America's Presbyterians? Leaders of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have joined ranks with the radical left in recent years. They vilify Israel, apologize for Islamic terrorists, and cheer on the Palestinian cause.

Now, these leftist elites are savoring an important victory, having pushed through a resolution to divest from U.S. companies operating in Israel: Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, and Hewlett Packard. The contentious vote in the church's general assembly passed by a narrow 310-to-303, and was a long-time goal of leftist Presbyterians, who since 2006 had submitted four divestiture resolutions that failed to muster sufficient votes.

Divestiture is largely symbolic: The companies in the portfolio of America's largest Presbyterian denomination represented a pittance of its investments, about $21 million. But leftist Presbyterians saw divestiture as a way to shame the companies and ostracize Israel over what they believe is its humiliation of Palestinian Arabs and illegal occupation of their lands – a situation they claim begets terrorism. They conveniently forget that Israel has been ready to trade land for peace since its birth in 1948. As for the companies they vilify: Caterpillar's bulldozers are used in anti-terror operations; and Motorola Solutions and Hewlett Packard provide electronic security systems.

More than a few rank-and-file Presbyterians were outraged over the June 20th divestiture vote; tens of thousands have left the church in recent years as it drifted left. “We stand in full support of Israel's right to protect its citizens and of all American companies to engage in honest free enterprise,” said Rev. Paul deJong, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Fort Myers, the oldest Presbyterian church in Lee County, Florida.

“The church has been infected,” a Presbyterian seminary student in Texas once told me, a women in her 30s who became a minister. She was referring to a pro-Palestinian conference hosted several years ago by Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). At the time, leftist Presbyterians were calling for a divestiture resolution.

Israel is not perfect, of course; no country is. But the venom of Israel-bashing Presbyterians has been troubling because of how it negates anything positive about the Middle East’s only democracy. Israel is singled out as a rights abuser.

What accounts for this moral confusion?

Israel-bashing didn't used to be fashionable, including among Presbyterians. Indeed, Israel was widely admired in the years after its birth and miraculous growth. Upbeat news articles spoke of those “plucky Jews.” But no more. Now Israeli Jews are denied credit for their nation’s economic and democratic miracle, growing out of a region that American writer Mark Twain – passing through as a travel writer in 1867 – had described as an unpopulated and “desolate country.”

Now, Israel’s story has a new twist, one put forth by left-leaning Presbyterians and fellow-travelers in other Christian denominations. Jews achieved what they did because they exploited somebody else: Palestinian Arabs. In this view Palestinian Arabs, not Jews, are now the chosen people.

This Israel-bashing narrative also bristles with anti-Americanism, and over the years it has become popular in America's universities. That's an old story. But what's less well known is that this same narrative has gained currency at many Christian seminaries. Many seminary professors have adopted a world view similar to the post-modern left; what for them is a strange hybrid of Christianity, Marxism, and the word of Edward Said. (Said, of course, was the high-profile Columbia University professor who popularized the idea of Palestinian victim hood within an anti-Western context.) At some Presbyterian seminaries, students in their early 20s –  future ministers and church leaders – have been indoctrinated for years with the ideological poison of the post-modern left, albeit within a Christian context.

Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

One Presbyterian seminary that I'm familiar with is in Texas: a 112-year-old institution whose idyllic grounds are near the University of Texas campus in Austin, the state capital. I'm not a Presbyterian, incidentally. I’m not even a regular church-goer, although I regularly attended a mainline Protestant church as a youngster. Eight years ago, however, I took a greater than usual interest in religion, after noticing  Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary was hosting a thought-provoking conference: “American Churches and the Palestinians.” The theme of the two-day event was inspired by a line from Isaiah 58:6: “To Loose the Chains of Injustice…”

I briefly visited the conference, and that passage’s subordination to a political view quickly became clear: Israeli Jews were colonial oppressors; and Palestinian Arabs were their victims. The event’s main sponsors were hardly friendly toward Israel: The Interfaith Community for Palestinian Rights; Friends of Sabeel-North America; and Pax Christi USA. Hundreds of religious leaders from around the country, representing various denominations, attended along with seminary faculty.

Consider three high-profile guest speakers:

Robert Jensen, a radical left-wing University of Texas journalism professor, discussed what he claimed was biased media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – biased, that is, against Palestinian Arabs. Jensen was hardly unbiased himself, however. Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, he gained national notoriety for his inflammatory Op-Ed in the Houston Chronicle, “U.S. Just as Guilty of Committing Own Violent Acts.” The attacks, Jensen argued, were “no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism…that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime.”

Two years earlier, Jensen published an Op-Ed in the Houston Chronicle and Palestine Chronicle. Its title and first sentence were the same: “I Helped Kill a Palestinian Today.”

“If you pay taxes to the U.S. government, so did you,” Jensen explained. He went onto to say that “the current Israeli attack on West Bank towns is not a war on terrorism, but part of a long and brutal war against the Palestinian people for land and resources.” He said nothing about billions of U.S. dollars of international aid flowing over the years into the Palestinian territories – only to be squandered, pocketed by corrupt officials, or used to fund terrorism.

At the conference's dinner, the main speakers were Cindy and Craig Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie. At age 23, Rachel Corrie died when she stood in front of an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer conducting anti-terror operations – clearing tunnels utilized by Palestinian terrorists. The driver failed to see her, and she was run over. Corrie is now a martyr to her supporters – their very own Joan of Arc. But the more accurate description of her would be “terror advocate.” A memorable photo shows her clad in Muslim garb – her face contorted with rage as she holds a burning American flag drawn on a piece of paper.

Corrie's parents head the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, a non-profit “that conducts and supports programs that foster connections between people, that build understanding, respect, and appreciation for differences, and that promote cooperation within and between local and global communities.”

The conference's star speaker was the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Episcopal priest who founded and directs the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. He has questioned Israel's right to exist, and like his Presbyterian counterparts apologizes for Islamic terrorists. He distributed a thought-provoking scholarly paper he'd written: “What is theologically and morally wrong with suicide bombings? A Palestinian Christian Perspective.” The subject was timely. Suicide bombings were more common at the time: Israel’s “separation barrier” – which has saved lives by thwarting suicide bombers, but that leftist Presbyterians widely criticized – was not finished at the time.

Ateek’s paper navigated a thicket of theological issues, but its conclusion was fairly simple: Suicide bombers do indeed violate Christian doctrine – but the desperation fueling their misguided actions is understandable: It's Israel’s fault. Neither Ateek nor his Presbyterian supporters, incidentally, have ever given credence to three other “root causes” of Palestinian Arab terrorism: Islamist ideology; the culture of hate permeating Palestinian culture; or an “honor-shame” mentality that undermines efforts for peace which the overwhelmingly majority of Israelis desire.

Visiting the conference, I walked down hallways lined with exhibits outside classrooms where "workshops" were held. The exhibits bristled with pro-Palestinian political literature and books. One focused on Palestinian culture, displaying clothing and other items. (Not included were suicide vests or a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria suicide bombing; such an exhibit was displayed by clever Hamas student activists at al-Najah University in Nablus).

Rev. Ateek, of Sabeel, must have felt right at home. He was clearly a favorite speaker -- a veritable celebrity. Conference-goers eagerly repeated his stories of alleged Israeli terrorism against Palestinians, including when, he says, his family was forcibly removed by Israeli troops on May 12, 1948. This, of course, was days before Arab armies tried to wipe Israel off the map. Perhaps Ateek’s personal stories are true; perhaps not. However, what’s clearly false about these stories, revolving around Israel's creation, is that Ateek presents them as normal and everyday occurrences, the result of Israel’s aggression; the defining narrative of what Israel was and became.

The conference was a sold-out event; and no doubt it and similar events in recent years have persuaded increasing numbers of Presbyterians to support divestiture. The conference's main organizer, Whitney S. Bodman, must have been pleased. A high-profile professor at Austin Seminary, he is an expert on Islam. He's an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and holds a doctorate in comparative religion from Harvard University. His research interests, he says, includes “Christian theology in an Islamic context.” Politically active, Bodman has praised terror group Hezbollah as a nation-building organization that fends off Israel's aggression. He has worked closely with the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the problematic Muslim group. Above all, he has been a prominent figure on the “inter-faith dialogue” circuit that attempts to bridge differences with Muslims. That effort kicked into high gear after the 9/11 attacks.

Speaking at a “religious diversity” symposium not long after Europe's infamous “cartoon riots,” Bodman belittled the idea that Muslims alone were responsible for Islamic-inspired terrorism and mayhem, and endeavored to smooth over the hurt feelings of Muslims. He explained: "First,remember that no incident happens in a vacuum and the violence and hatred exploding throughout the world today is not really about one event or something as seemingly trivial as a cartoon. It is an accumulation of hurt over months and years. It is Iraq and Palestine, suicide bombings and Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and 9/11 and this whole sense that there really is a clash of civilizations, an insidious danger to our way of life.”

What must the learned professor have thought about an Islamic terror plot in Canada that made headlines around this time – one involving 17 young Muslim men and youths? Their roots were not in the Middle East but Canada – home to anti-Americanism, multiculturalism, and unlimited tolerance. Yet they wanted to blow up Canada’s landmarks and behead the prime minister.

In their eagerness to appease Muslims, some Presbyterians have put themselves in even more compromising positions. In October, 2004, Ronald Stone, a retired professor of Christian and social ethics at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (affiliated with Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), met in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah commander Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, while on an official “fact-finding mission” to the Middle East.

Stone caused a furor when he told an Arab television channel that “relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders.”

“We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people,” he added. It was an odd way to describe Hezbollah, which Washington has designated a terror group for killing hundreds of Israeli and Americans. This included 200 U.S. Marines in the 1983 suicide bombing of their Beirut barracks and deadly attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Stone was part of the lead group of the church’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. The church repudiated his remarks. But the controversy didn't stop the head of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the Chicago area, Rev. Robert Reynolds, from meeting nearly one year later with a Hezbollah commander, much to the outrage of Chicago-area Jewish leaders.

Subtle Indoctrination

It's hardly coincidental that these Presbyterian leaders and activist echo the political and theological line that's promoted at more than a few Presbyterian seminaries. Sometimes, the political indoctrination of young seminary students can be insidious.

A few weeks before its pro-Palestinian conference, Austin Seminary hosted a photography exhibition related to the conference’s theme: Palestinians as victims; Jews as their exploiters. Dozens of heart-rending photos adorned hallway walls outside classrooms. For future ministers and religious leaders, the photos were there to see, ponder, and absorb. The exhibit was from left-leaning documentary photographer Alan Pogue, a Vietnam War-veteran specializing in political and social issues from a “social justice” angle.

The exhibition’s theme was unmistakable: European Jews displaced by World War 2 had created Israel – and ejected Palestinians from their ancestral homes. In fact, this was the caption of one photo. There were no positive photos of Israel or Israeli-Jews.

Two photos arranged side by side impressed me for the subtle anti-Americanism and moral equivalence suggested by their juxtaposition. One was a photo from New York City after the September 11 attacks – a poignant scene of a make-shift sidewalk memorial. It was a still life of sorts: flowers, photos, and mementos left by friends and family members.

Beside it was a strikingly similar photo – one of a Baghdad sidewalk memorial. It remembered the approximately 300 mostly women and children killed by a U.S. precision-guided bomb during the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq. They died in an underground shelter that U.S. military planners presumed was one of Saddam Hussein's command-and-control centers. Just before the war, however, it was converted into an air-raid shelter – one Saddam’s military men avoided. This of course is a common tactic among Middle Eastern terrorists and “insurgents” – putting civilians in harms way, and then when they are killed blaming and shaming the enemy.

Pogue saw things differently. His caption referred to the photos “similarities.” The subtle impression was that Americans now knew the same horrors their government had visited upon foreign lands.
Curiously, the photo exhibit was removed the day before a rare event at the seminary: a colloquium of Presbyterian ministers and rabbis held two weeks after the pro-Palestinian conference. The event’s title: “A Difficult Friendship: Divestment, Dialogue, and Hope.”

It was a revealing title. Seminary professors have gone out of their way in recent years to bridge “differences” with Palestinian Arabs and Muslims – even to the extent of excusing Islamic terrorism or apologizing for Judeo-Christian culture and history. Yet their “difficult relationship” is with Jews – not Muslims.

No wonder that a generation of seminary students has been infected with the poison of the postmodern left: a poison that vilifies Israel, America, and even the West. In casual conversations I had with young and idealistic seminary students, I noticed a common thread: They couldn't bring themselves to condemn other cultures -- especially those they considered underdogs. You've heard of self-hating Jews. They were self-hating Christians.

One Austin Seminary student in her early 20s, an honor student, told me about participating in an “interfaith” function with Muslim men at Austin Seminary; and after the Muslims broke their fast she offered to shake hands with one man in a flowing robe. Yet he only reluctantly grasped her hand, she recalled.

She wasn't shocked or put off. 

She made excuses for him, explaining it was important to “understand” his culture. Yet this was in a Christian seminary -- and a Muslim holy day was being celebrated there.
In explaining Arab rage against the West, this same student mentioned the “crusades” – no matter that quite a few Jews had their heads lopped off by crusaders; or that the crusades were a delayed response to Muslim aggression. Now, Islamic aggression is on the march again – and some of its religious underpinnings are making inroads into the Christian faith, judging by what's being taught at more than a few Christian seminaries.

One seminary student even spoke of terror master Yasar Arafat as a freedom fighter. “You know, he won a Nobel Peace Prize,” he reminded me.

Recently, Austin Seminary got a new dean, a long-time theology professor at the seminary named David H. Jensen. One of his more interesting scholarly articles pondered the cultural imperialism fostered by America’s most famous hamburger: the Big Mac. In "The Big Mac and the Lord's Prayer,” Jensen argued that McDonald's and its all-American mean were emblematic of the dark underbelly of globalization -- and even at odds with Christian values. “The McMeal is…a parody of the Eucharist, extending an invitation to all, but embodying only one culture,” he wrote. Interestingly, McDonald's strongest sales at the time were in none other than anti-American France and former Cold War enemies China and Russia. All of which underscores the perception gap that exists between leftist elites and ordinary people – a gap now reflected in the battle between rank-and-file Presbyterians and leftist elites in Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Years ago, the Presbyterian church was part of the venerable WASP establishment. It had produced many presidents over the years. Its parishioners were well-heeled, well-educated, and very successful. They believed in America. Those days are gone.

Now that divestiture is finally a reality, the soul of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may have been lost forever to the left. Decent Presbyterians, like those at First Presbyterian Church of Fort Myers, will face an uphill battle to reclaim it.

The left is in charge, for now. 

June 22, 2014

George Bush’s Prediction of the Iraq Meltdown

Originally published at Frontpage Magazine and The American Thinker blog

By David Paulin

Former President George W. Bush is remaining mum on the tragedy unfolding in Iraq. But as an army of bloodthirsty Islamists rampages across Iraq with the goal of establishing a 7th century religious tyranny — a caliphate — it’s worth recalling who years ago had predicted this would happen if the Democrats got their way.

It was President George W. Bush and his top officials.

They warned early on that Iraq was ripe for the rise of an Islamic caliphate — either in a failed state created by Saddam Hussein or, they later contended, if the U.S.-led coalition bugged out without leaving behind a stable Iraq. For instance, two years into the U.S.-led occupation, in 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous — and he foresaw what has in fact happened. He explained, “Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.”

Vice President Dick Cheney also warned of the rise of a caliphate if the U.S. withdrew before Iraq was capable of governing and defending itself. “They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate” to be “governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran,” he said.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, then America’s top commander in the Middle East, also offered prescient testimony in 2005 to the House Armed Services Committee, forseeing what the terror masters would do in a weak Iraqi state. “They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’ we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.”

Liberals jeered such dire predictions — and especially at the repeated use of the word “caliphate.”

The New York Times, for instance, ran a piece on December 12, 2005, that mocked the forgoing Bush-administration officials for their warnings of a “caliphate” — portraying them as foreign-policy amateurs peddling an alarmist view of the Middle East. Wrote reporter Elisabeth Bumiller: "A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq."

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, obviously don’t believe what’s printed in The New York Times. ISIS, incidentally, has reportedly been preparing to make its move for several years — right under the radar of the Obama administration. Were they emboldened by President Obama’s endless apologies to the Muslim world? Or the deadlines he’d set for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably all of the above. But what no doubt really energized them was President Obama’s failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.

President Bush, for his part, issued a prophetic warning in 2007 when vetoing a Democratic bill that would have withdrawn U.S. troops. “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” he said. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

A little history is worth recalling. Saddam’s failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction, including remnants of his toxic arsenal (some of which was in fact found), gave the Bush administration legal cover for going into Iraq. But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East: a long-term project to liberate millions in Iraq; nudge the region toward modernity; and above all make America safer in a post-9/11 world — all by correctly defining who the enemy was and taking the war on terror to them.

The Bush administration certainly encountered setbacks in Iraq and made mistakes; the fog of war invariably upsets the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. But Iraq only plunged into utter chaos after President Obama brought home U.S. troops, despite warnings that Iraq was not ready to govern or defend itself. The blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq has been squandered.

The terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration’s tepid support of moderate rebels there. Now they are on the march, just as President Bush and his top officials had predicted. After they establish their regional caliphate in Iraq and Syria, expect them to next turn their attention toward their real enemies: America, Israel, and the West. Oil prices are bound to go through the roof, sending the global economy into a tailspin.

President Obama and his foreign-policy advisers have blood on their hands. But if Obama remains in character, he’ll do what he usually does — blame it all on George Bush.

June 14, 2014

At a 9/11 ceremony, a little girl asks why her father died

"I'd like someone to really, really explain why this happened."

 Originally published on September 11, 2013, at the American Thinker blog and FrontPage Magazine

By David Paulin

It has been a heartbreaking scene at 9/11 ceremonies in recent years: children honoring mothers or fathers they can't remember - yet desperately want to know.

Emma Kathryn Hunt is one of them. On Tuesday, she attended a 9/11 ceremony at Sherwood Island State Park in Westport, Connecticut -- near where hundreds of horrified onlookers gathered 12 years ago and watched smoke billowing from the Twin Towers, some 50 miles away.

Emma, a middle-school student, joined her mother, grandparents and hundreds of others at the state park, the site of a 9/11 memorial that includes 154 stone plaques on the manicured grounds. Each bears the name of a 9/11 victim who had ties to Connecticut. One is Emma's father: William Christopher Hunt. Emma was 15 months old when her dad died with nearly 3,000 others at the World Trade Center. A 32-year-old vice president of Eurobrokers, he had worked on the 84th floor of the South Tower.

"What do I remember about my dad? Nothing. Absolutely nothing," Emma told a reporter covering the event. Even so, Emma said that when she goes to bed at night, she gazes at a photo of both her and her dad taken on her first birthday. "It's on my bedside table. It's the last thing I look at night. And I tell him, 'Good night, daddy. I love you. I love you always.'"

She explained, "Everything I know about my dad I know because someone in my family tells me things about him. Mostly, it's my grandma. She tells me stories about him when he was a kid. Or how I'm like him. But I don't really know, because I can't remember him."

Emma remained composed during the first part of Tuesday's ceremony, according to Marian Gail Brown's article in the Westport News. Emma, Brown wrote, "tucked her bright orange-red hair away from her freckled face" as she listened to each speaker: Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman; and a local minister and rabbi. But "then came the reading of the names of the 161 victims of 9/11 with Connecticut connections in alphabetical order. 'Laurence Abel'... 'Allen Patrick Boyle'...'Sandra Campbell'...'Judith Florence Hofmiller'...Emma grabbed her mother by the knee and squeezed. Two more names before the 71st name. Emma leaned into her mom. Her shoulders shook. 'William Christopher Hunt.' Her body convulsed. And the tears poured out. Her mom rubbed her back and pulled her adolescent half-girl, half-woman body toward her, whispering to Emma."

As heartbreaking as that moment was, it wasn't as heartbreaking as other things that Emma revealed; specifically, that her teachers don't talk much about 9/11. Emma, however, said she wishes they did discuss the terror attack -- even though she worries about what might be said about why her father died.

It's a troubling revelation. Does she perhaps worry she might be taught the version of 9/11 told by the anti-American left; by people like Ward Churchill, the former ethnic studies professor who infamously called people like her father "little Eichmanns"? That characterization delighted the left, whose members believed that America got what it deserved on 9/11 because of the evils it had visited on foreign lands.

Emma is perhaps too young to learn about the nuances of why they hate us; yet a question she asks goes to the heart of the matter: "I'd like someone to really, really explain why this happened."

Why hasn't anybody told her?

Connecticut's 9/11 ceremony was indeed sad -- though not in the way that those who didn't talk to Emma might have thought.