"Dear Jack Dorsey"

Published on Dec 20, 2016

In this video, Laura Loomer, the Assistant Communications Director for Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action thanks Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for helping James O'Keefe and Veritas become more successful.

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel Project Veritas Action.

Minions / fellow culture warriors involved:

Laura Loomer

OSU Students Threaten Trump "Supporter", Try to Suppress Free Speech

Published on Sep 16, 2016

In this video, several Ohio State University students harass a Project Veritas Action journalist who portrays a Trump supporter on campus who is chalking for Trump. Students are heard planning ways to prevent the Trump supporter from writing "Trump" in chalk on campus and others talk about how they want to assault the supporter and urinate on the chalk.

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel Project Veritas Action.

Berkeley Mob Shuts Down Free Speech

Published on Sep 15, 2016

In this video, James O'Keefe and a Project Veritas Action journalist are surrounded by a mob of angry social justice warriors (SJW) college students at University of California Berkeley who scream at O'Keefe and attempt to destroy his mini Trump wall. O’Keefe and a PVA journalist write “Trump” in chalk, walk around with a Trump cutout, and build a mini brick wall. A mob of students chant obscenities at O’Keefe and proceed to kick down the wall. The students are heard chanting, “Fuck your wall, fuck your wall, fuck your wall.”

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel Project Veritas Action.

I Have a Dream

Much has changed since the time of Edmund Burke. While prudence, honor, restraint, reverence, self-discipline, liberty and conviction will always be conservative, modern “conservative” declarations seem to directly contradict these classical virtues. There is no better time than now to explore how these themes have changed and how these virtues clash. This is a time when Peter Lawler believes the Republicans will become two parties split between anti-libertarians and libertarians. Former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy is the neo-conservative version of the Declaration of Independence; calling for the promotion of democracy for oppressed people’s throughout the world. Fiscally, our Republican allies are anything but conservative. As the Wall Street tycoon once said, “our trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions.”

But our universities are also at a crossroads, becoming what David French calls "islands of repression in a sea of liberty." Professors have seemed to have figured out answers to all of life’s great questions. The Academy is, without a doubt, the left’s last vast impenetrable fortress. It is an ideological monopoly on truth, which, as Victor Davis Hansen has said, “has adopted a therapeutic curriculum in pursuit of political objectives.” The pseudo-religious rhetoric of “diversity” has replaced the great rhetorical social questions of Plato and Aristotle; the relationship between God and man, virtue and vice, heroism and cowardice, and beauty and wisdom. These questions have been replaced with an obsession, not of veritas, but with skin color.

Rutgers Professors and staff gave 104 times more money to John Kerry than George W. Bush in the 2004 election cycyle. One Hundred and Four to One. This ratio is comparable to the political diversity present under the rule of Genghis Khan.

In our beloved Academy; a supposed citadel of intellectual brilliance, its commanding officers have become intellectual sloths; unchallenged by any principled conservative opposition and unbridled to invite speakers to campus to compare Bush to the Ku Klux Klan, or rant about how the war to liberate the middle east is morally bad in a class completely unrelated to international relations or its relating philosophies.

From a journalistic standpoint, THE CENTURION is an avowedly conservative magazine. We implore our detractors who demand political balance to weigh us on the scale against other student publications including The Medium, the Green Print, The Review and The Caellian. Let’s not forget The Daily Targum, a newspaper from which I was once fired. Worry not my Leftists; the academic fulcrum still tips in favor of you; if not in print (we’ll take this potential newfound conservative leaning as a testament to our success), then decidedly so in the classroom. THE CENTURION arrived on the scene last November to a blazing fire, extinguishing it with guerilla tactics; awards on doors, sensitivity complaints, racist cereals and needed muckraking against local political cronyism. This sardonic approach seems to have had more efficacy and influence on our student body which cares as much about truth as Muslims care about Jesus.

On our campus common sense is blurred by obfuscation; the p.c. patrol, the diversity police, the self-esteem deans, the speech codes, and the professors violating core tenets of academic freedom, etc.

I founded THE CENTURION because I have a dream...

I have a dream where diversity refers to more than just the melanin in one’s skin; where conservatives are not to be called “fascists” for advocating pluralities of methodologies, perspectives and common sense views.

I have a dream that Lucky Charms is thought of as a breakfast cereal rather than a symbol of Leprechaun oppression.

I have a dream where the banning of “offensive” Grease Trucks sandwich names is of little consequence compared to the rapes of women off campus.

I have a dream someone realizes Rutgers’ financial woes just might be due to dozens of committees and caucuses “devoted to advancing our common purposes” as well as pork programs and counselors and their Deans that believe self-esteem is more important than the process by which you earn it.

I have a dream where we realize guns are no more responsible for Columbine than spoons are responsible for Michael Moore’s obesity.

I have a dream where we lay our presents under Christmas Trees, not holiday shrubs.

I have a dream at least one building or program or committee or scholarship will be named after our Rutgers’ Nobel peace prize winning graduate Milton Friedman, RC ’32. His axiom that political freedom requires economic freedom is a lesson learned only by visiting the graves of the innocent women and children butchered to death by bloodthirsty tyrants; economic atrocities condoned by the applause of Paul Robeson's supporters.

I have a dream where bureaucrats, uneducated in matters relating to life’s great questions, stop putting restrictions on what I can or can’t say, stop enacting policies that arbitrarily prohibit behavior, and stop making value judgments on what I believe.

I have a dream where conservative faculty are free from ideological witch hunts; where political opinions and/or skin color is prohibited from being considered in the hiring of university professors.

I have a dream where the unfair employment practices and accusations against one of our nations most gifted sociobiologists because of his conservative leaning, is prosecuted by the fullest extent of the law.

I have a dream where they will introduce a biology prerequisite for women’s studies classes.

For we the conservatives, ironically, have become the modern day Henry David Thoreaus, albeit in a less revolutionary way. For we, the silent majority, “stand athwart history yelling stop” in a place and at a time when our professors and peers call for radical change.

None of us knew each other a year ago. A man I considered my best friend last year betrayed me over chalk yielding, gown wearing overly ambitious students buying into their own hype. I have met others since then. The unappreciated wisdom of the encyclopedic Wesley James Young; whose civility is only matched by his compassion. The southern legal language of Jeff Erickson. The untapped artistic genius and patience of Justine Mertz. The editorial prowess of my successor, Dan Whitney, who spent late nights (and their accompanying early mornings) at production meetings curbing his enthusiasm, as well as the timely alarm on his wristwatch. The honor in Alan Marrero’s eyes. The steadfast morale of Greg Walker. The Enigmatic Matt Klimek, consummate but withdrawn...

We publish onward, not in the name of our friendship, but for the love of our cause. We have nothing to offer but a slightly naïve, scant knowledge of modern conservatism from our readings in outside publications, books and recently, online journals. The intellectual sloths and anonymous cowards at the pulpit in the ivory tower at Rutgers who read this sentiment will post on their blogs, with relief, our efforts are not nearly enough to dethrone them! For we do not have the required experience, cannot battle student apathy and have not read as much third-rate Marxist hogwash.

But our superior ideas have been time tested, consecrated by the blood of martyrs, victorious in the world of reality strife-torn by a century plagued by revolution. Our naiveté is offset by our courage, bound not for each other but for our cause on a campus that unites in condemning us. I have been hated more in the last year of my life than in the past 20 years of my existence combined, and most likely more hated than you readers. And if that seems somewhat dramatic, you’re damn right it is. So entrenched are we in our cause, Matt, Justine and I forfeited characteristics of coyness and prudence long after we received the anonymous death threats, to prove a point that we weren’t even certain would turn out to be effective.

Transcending all of this; we decided to do something about which we cared. We challenged people to see our version of the truth. It is my contention we have succeeded.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us about the hottest thing in town.

James O'Keefe

Originally printed in the December 2005 issue of the Centurion.

WE ARE WATCHING

NJO: On this day, James or someone on Team James made this powerful two-line all-caps foray into the world of LJ drama...

an extraordinary machine (labyrinthyne) wrote,

2005-03-22 18:56:00

• Previous
• Memorize
• Share
• Next

• Mood: peeved
• Music: office silence

death, taxes, and idiots like you

to james and the rest of the centurion staff:

thanks for proving my point. you can't even ask me to print my own words? COWARDS. i DID write letters to james, so don't even try that as an argument. you are left with nothing. i write this in my blog because it seems it's unnecessary to submit my thoughts directly to you; you'll go looking for them here anyway, even after i've given them to you. you're ridiculous and infantile, and if, as it seems, you can't find any real story and must either wait for it to come to you or create it for yourself, go ahead. print that. and sign it with my name. i stand by it.

but please, if you discover any human decency among your editors' tools, let me know.

arielle.

p.s. if you're going to complain about spelling errors in blog entries, of which i caught none in any entry you printed, you might consider spelling "elitist" correctly before you pin the title onto me.





outsiders: part of my journal entry (and a very silly picture of me) has been published in this month's Rutgers Centurion (click here for a PDF file). i'm on pages 3 and 13. page 13 is a portion of my journal entry - they call me a coward for not writing my thoughts in a letter to the editor. page 3 is just the first of my THREE letters to the editor-in-chief, which i wrote before i published my blog entry. plus, the title of the whole schtick, "profiles in cowardice," plays off of comments i made in the second of my letters. whoops! a little fact-checking error, there, boys! better luck next time.
for background info on this whole mess, click here.

• Post a new comment
• 6 comments

moooshy

March 23 2005, 00:36:37 UTC

wow, what a dumbass publication. i read through it.

jesus christ.

• Reply

Anonymous

March 23 2005, 09:11:47 UTC

WE ARE WATCHING

YOU TELL US WE ARE A DUMBASS PUBLICATION: TELL US WHY AT MAIL@RUCENTURION.COM, OR DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

• Reply

labyrinthyne

March 23 2005, 14:39:06 UTC

Re: WE ARE WATCHING

centurion:

not all conversation has to be TO YOU. that's the thing about free speech. it's not restricted to any one direction.

• Reply

Anonymous

March 23 2005, 20:21:00 UTC

Re: WE ARE WATCHING

James go fuck yourself.

• Reply

addienfaemne

March 23 2005, 22:40:32 UTC

Re: WE ARE WATCHING

I'm interested in knowing exactly how Arielle was behaving "cowardly" when she had already written to the editors of the Centurion.

A blog is a place for your personal thoughts - your "if you don't like us, say it to our face" shtick is really tired because most people do use their blogs to vent and express their personal thoughts and opinions, and that's exactly what Arielle did.

It makes YOU look hypersensitive to call Arielle a "coward" - are you too devoid of your own fresh, positive political material that you have to make fun of others simply for not agreeing with your political statements? It also makes you look ignorant, as Arielle had previously written you a letter that is PUBLISHED IN THAT VERY ISSUE!

So go ahead, call Arielle a "coward". Just realize that your magazine will get more respect if you graduate the sixth grade first.

• Reply

anticode

March 23 2005, 15:37:48 UTC

• link
• Collapse

This is another situation where the term "cock monkey" applies.

• Reply

Source: http://labyrinthyne.livejournal.com/13382.html

The New McCarthyism

“You have no first amendment rights,” said Richard Dienst, Director of the Rutgers Undergraduate English Program, to Rutgers College Republican Darren Cimillo, when he dared to challenge Duke University guest speaker Susan Willis on March 8th, 2005. Willis “consider[ed] the history of the Ku Klux Klan and its relationship to current U.S. foreign policy.” Richard Dienst and English Department Chair Richard Miller called the police and physically chased Darren out of Murray Hall and onto College Avenue. A police report confirms this.

On March 10th, Justine Mertz and I confronted Mr. Dienst with a video camera and asked him a) why the English department’s procured student fees are sponsoring a highly politicized event with no relation to the subject of English Composition and b) why he doesn’t believe in the United States Constitution. He told us to take it to “judicial affairs.” The video can be viewed at www.rucenturion.com.

On March 11th, a letter written by Richard Dienst and Richard Miller was sent to Dean Kirschner of Rutgers College and Dean Stauffer of Mason Gross in what apparently was a request for disciplinary action against Justine and myself for our “misguided actions.” The letter continued, “If there is a pattern of disrupted and improper behavior…we hope that an appropriate response will be made by University officials.”

From The Alien and Sedition Acts, to the silencing of Abolitionists to the McCarthy era of the mid 20th century, throughout history this country has learned to accept the First Amendment. John Stuart Mill’s argument for unfettered free speech was simple: if one’s ideas are not constantly discussed and challenged, their ideas will become prejudices and we would be unable to explain why we believe in them. The moral philosopher would undoubtedly find it ironic that an institution as morally relative as Rutgers would begin espousing that there exists a”right and wrong” political view and way to speak. No professor or bureaucrat is omniscient or qualified enough to make such determinations. For in America, the “free marketplace of ideas,” all things compete for public acceptance without restriction, especially on college campuses where debate and discourse are needed.

But from recent events at Rutgers, it is has been established that higher learning and free speech are incompatible. Rutgers, a public university that must comply with the 14th and 1st amendments of the Constitution, has four draconian speech codes (www.speechcodes.org) that silence minority opinion and suppress speech that is vaguely deemed “offensive” or does not comply with the university’s political orthodoxy. It has also developed a resume of constitutional violations that undermine the pursuit of truth and threaten the very foundation the Academy is supposed to rest upon.

In September 2002, Rutgers violated the US constitution by banning the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship from using campus facilities and stripped the group of university funding because it “violated anti-discrimination policies” by requiring that its leaders be committed to InterVarsity’s “basis of faith and purpose.” John Leo, a columnist from townhall.com, pointed out that after the campus sponsored witch hunt, Rutgers anti-defamation laws would require the RU Democrats to “allow a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying president, and a Muslim group to accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism or voodoo.” Touché.

Then on March 6th, 2005 THE CENTURION was banned from participating in Tent State University, apparently due to our views; clearly a violation of the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The organizers of TSU, an anti-war demonstration in support of state-funded education, published staff meeting minutes on their website at www.tentstate.com. Organizers of the event declared illegally “THE CENTURION as an organization is not welcome at TSU under any circumstance” and “[T]hey cannot be affiliated officially with TSU in any way.” No action taken by University officials.

On February 10th, 2005 Rutgers violated the US constitution by censoring fast-food sandwiches names, locally known as “Fat Sandwiches,” because the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities deemed sandwich favorites, including the Fat Bitch and the Fat Dyke “offensive.” Meanwhile, the LGBTQI (the ever expanding acronym) community has not been “offended” by Bitch Magazine (www.bitchmagazine.com), whose mission statement reads that they seek to be a “voice for feminism.” The magazine advertises its readers to “Join TeamBitch!” “Host a Bitch event!” and “Talk Bitch up on the street and on campus!” On the website, the editors of Bitch Magazine advocate taking the insult “bitch,” as a compliment, because it is another name for an “outspoken woman.” Rightfully so, but notice the contradiction.

While feminists and queer communities at Rutgers are successfully banning sandwiches and reforming language, they have been failing to recognize football players who get away with beating their girlfriends. Last semester, Rutgers Athletic Director Bob Mulcahy cleared starting defensive end Alfred Peterson to play football after he was indicted for allegedly assaulting a female student. Peterson was exonerated by a university judiciary committee before the season began, but pleaded guilty to assault charges last month. Given identical circumstances and considering the testimony he heard, Mulcahy said he would make the same decision. And where is the outcry by feminists? At a newspaper called The Medium.

Last semester, 5,000 copies of the The Medium were stolen by self-described “progressive activists,” who combated the paper’s feminist-mocking not with debate, reason, or due process, but with thievery and deception. Worse, before the crime, students of the class “Woman, Culture and Society” were required to sign a calling for a campus-wide ban. Barbara Balliet, Director of the Women’s Studies Department, disassociated the petition with the missing papers saying, “I don’t even know that they’re stolen… Do you have evidence that they’re stolen?” While women on Douglass Campus were “offended” by nude pictures of women in The Medium, the all-female staff of the of Douglass’s self-described “progressive” magazine The Caellian recently printed graphic pictures of a softball sized sphere lodged inside of a young girl’s anus. Aren’t men repugnant?

In March 2005, Rutgers violated the US constitution and academic freedoms by prohibiting The Daily Targum from investigating the University’s spending habits of a budget of more than $1.2 billion, some of which comes from our rising 9% state user taxes. John Palvik, the Chairman of the Rutgers Journalism Department, refused to allow students to make such investigations since Pavlik and his department were subject to an investigation about how student athletes receive special perks including reserved courses in communications.

Luckily there exist organizations which fight constitutional violations, such as the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (theFIRE.org), a group dedicated to uphold freedom of speech, legal equality, due process and religious liberty on increasingly repressive campuses. Groups like InterVarsity continued to exist, but that took a lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance and Students for a Free Tibet are not required to consider for leadership students of opposing beliefs. Groups like Tent State are free to discriminate on the basis of belief, simply due to their views.

At Rutgers, a school that prides itself on “making diversity a way of life,” “diversity” is only about skin color. Freedom is given to those who have the “correct views.” The academic core values of freedom of thought and expression are in danger of extinction. In the words of Charlton Heston, we must not “let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.”

Depending on how seriously Richard Dienst’s false threats and accusations are taken, THE CENTURION may soon be victim to another of the Rutgers’ witch hunts, where constitutional rights are not a defense.

NJO: Originally printed in the March 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Does the Chair of the English Dept. believe in the First Amendment?

Uploaded on May 3, 2009

Video of the discussion with the Chair after he threatened a student.

NJO: Video and caption from YouTube channel RUCenturion.

James' summation of the incident makes up the first two paragraphs of an article titled "The New McCarthyism" in the March 2005 issue of the Centurion and goes as follows:

“You have no first amendment rights,” said Richard Dienst, Director of the Rutgers Undergraduate English Program, to Rutgers College Republican Darren Cimillo, when he dared to challenge Duke University guest speaker Susan Willis on March 8th, 2005. Willis “consider[ed] the history of the Ku Klux Klan and its relationship to current U.S. foreign policy.” Richard Dienst and English Department Chair Richard Miller called the police and physically chased Darren out of Murray Hall and onto College Avenue. A police report confirms this.

     On March 10th , Justine Mertz and I confronted Mr. Dienst with a video camera and asked him a) why the English department’s procured student fees are sponsoring a highly politicized event with no relation to the subject of English Composition and b) why he doesn’t believe in the United States Constitution. He told us to take it to “judicial affairs.” The video can be viewed at www.rucenturion.com.

Pursuit of Truth?

After being condemned by feminists and free-speech opponents for the suggestion that men and women might actually be different, Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers was forced to apologize three times for his explanation that the lower number of women than men in the hard sciences is due to "innate sex differences." This is the second "controversy" for Lawrence, who once suggested after September 11th there be more patriotism on campus. In this instance, the President was citing empirical research that found differences in brain chemistries between the sexes. In some areas, like the languages, women were found to be more aptly suited. In other areas like math and science, men had the advantage. But the academic elite at Harvard decided to kill the messenger and began accusing their "sexist" president of being against "diversity" and "equality." (The two seem to contradict one another, but that's another issue). One female MIT professor at the conference left the room telling reporters "this kind of bias makes me physically ill." While dialogue about the findings of such research has been condemned in universities which "pursue truth," outside research has confirmed that increases in testosterone given to women enhance their spatial abilities while reducing their verbal abilities. Outliers (those who lie farthest away from the average on the bell curve) are slightly more prevalent among men. Thus exceptional genius is slightly more prevalent among men. Universities recruit the most exceptional geniuses alive. Thus male exceptional geniuses are more prevalent among science and math faculty than women. These are logical and statistical conclusions, not "biases." Just as Galileo faced the discrimination in the 17th century when he suggested Earth was not the center of the universe, now collegiate institutions which pursue truth are hushing important debates (and facts) about human nature. A petition was signed to have Lawrence formally withdraw his statements. Now a petition should be signed to have Harvard's motto, "Veritas," withdrawn as well.

James O'Keefe
EIC@ rucenturion. com

NJO: Originally posted at RUCenturion.com.

The conservative manifesto

By James O’Keefe

Published: Thursday, October 16, 2003

Updated: Sunday, February 22, 2009

There is a spectre haunting Rutgers - the spectre of liberalism.

At 19, I am a conservative Republican and an ideological minority. This country has gotten to a point where tolerant, "diverse" colleges and universities that advocate fairness and equality are beginning to ostracize those who don't hold one universal belief - that of liberalism. My social views have been bashed and underrepresented by the liberal majority at Rutgers and around the collegiate United States.

Registration records indicate the ratio of voting professors at top schools is ten democrats to every one republican, a documented fact and a pitiful, self-perpetuating tragedy, according to studentsforacademicfreedom.org. The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right is even worse - a deplorable 15:1, according to www.frontpagemag.com. This is completely out of balance. On campuses there is more support for the Green Party than there is for the Republican Party! There is a hatred and loathing of conservatives, a trend that continues to flourish because colleges obsess with superficial diversity rather than intellectual diversity. I am intimidated and unable to express myself because there are overwhelming prejudices against what I believe in.

Witnessing 60 professors last week inappropriately label Rutgers Hillel and its Israel Inspires event as being "right-wing," and expecting that characterization in itself to be an accusation, has led me to believe conservatism has apparently become a crime. When was the last time there were 60 professors protesting all of the "left-wing" things that permeate campus? Never. Remember that these are the professors that teach us. Are there any significant forums for conservatives to express themselves in college? None. Can they say or do anything without being targeted or protested? Of course not. Rutgers promotes an intellectual imbalance, and in the process it distances conservative students. The majority doesn't care because the majority isn't conservative.

As a citizen of this country, it is my right to have a balanced education. Attention is not focused on the imbalance, but rather that it's stubborn for people like me to still remain conservative. Conservative reason is viewed as intrinsically wrong. This logic is beyond flawed - it's pathetic. Students can't defend its reason because their fundamental way of being taught is skewed!
 
"How so?" the skeptic wonders. In philosophy it is the professor's preference of theories of the self over theories of utilitarianism, of the libertarian over the communitarian. In sociology it is the preference of social conflict theories over functionalist theories - blame-society approaches rather than blame-individual approaches. In economics it is the questioning of capitalism, the bashing of "laissez faire" or "hands-off" (although many professors humorously teach void of ideological regulation). I'm not even going to mention subjects like history or political science. It is this fundamental favoritism in departments, the subtle imbalances that trusting student must embrace to get a good grade and the biased administration promoting it that enrages me. While everybody else happily jots down their daily notes, satisfied and gullible, writing in their blue books every liberal theory their beacon of academic insight taught them, I wonder what happened to the support for my beliefs. Where's my beacon?

In the first class I ever took at Rutgers, the professor begged the question, "Why is 'Communism' such a dirty word?" All the students in the class nodded and there was a chorus of "I knows." Then another student stood up and said, "If our country was socialist it would be a much better place to live." The entire class erupted in agreement.

Finally a student exclaimed, "Those conservatives are nazi bastards!"

Lovely.

The poor drones of Cuba could kindly explain to my professor, if they weren't being tortured by Fidel Castro, why "Communism is such a dirty word." So could the poor souls of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. But I encourage gratuitous statements praising extremist left-wing tyrants, as long as there are statements praising extremist right-wing tyrants as well. Extremes are dangerous, but if presented, must be taught in a balanced format.

However, Marxism is taught freely at colleges throughout America, while it is regarded as perfectly normal for the theories of Friedrich Hayek or Leo Strauss to be ignored. (They were conservative fundamentalists, and it figures you have never heard of them). Sadly, many of the professors who embrace the "Communist Manifesto" have never had a chance to live in a Communist regime and experience its harsh realities. Perhaps only then would they we able to understand why so many of their descendants fled to Capitalist America.

I'm tired of President George W. Bush being used as a scapegoat for every social problem. I'm tired of people questioning the need for a military defense after madmen bomb and threaten us. I'm tired of frivolous lawsuits and obese children suing fast food restaurants and patients driving up insurance costs by suing the doctors that protect their health. I'm tired of the incessant protesting for the sake of protesting, and the constant belligerence against America without the acknowledgement of how much opportunity and freedom we have.

I realize right now I'm appealing to a collegiate audience that hates everything I stand for. I know there are those who will deny this imbalance, or who will tell me my views are wrong. (Did I say your views are wrong?) Politics aside, I implore you to desire an objective and balanced education. There is no conspiracy I speak of, just a sad truth. I am concerned for your welfare. One day when you graduate from this liberal oasis and enter the real world, you will find that half the country will be just like me. An unlikely state like California just ousted their governor because they were getting fed up with liberal politics. Perhaps you will work some day for a boss that is conservative, no doubt for a company. This is your wake-up call.

So go ahead. Criticize my conservative column. Continue to nurture the lack of political balance at universities everywhere. Do it to conform. Do it because you love ignorance. Do it because you're young, gullible, and you're manipulated into thinking it is your collegiate duty to hate the status quo. Do it because 60 brilliant Ph.D.s at Rutgers actually think conservative propaganda is beginning to become a problem, when at one of the only conservative rallies last year (supporting the troops - not the war), there were more protestors than there were supporters. Do it because people like me are evil and shouldn't have the right to express themselves on campuses where extremists have the right to spit on my American flag and slander my American character.

Call me names, and frown at me because of my beliefs. It happens in my classes every day and I'm used to it. Maybe you liberals will realize I'm the one who's the underdog, and you'll start rooting for me.

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column, "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays. 

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.

Politically Correct B.S.

Politically correct language and its inane euphemisms are a menace to society. They are threatening your right to free speech and your ability to express yourself the way you want. Form is now becoming more important than substance. Prevalent social inequalities and oppressions look to language for remedy. What results is a thick, cunning manipulation of English - a lackluster solution to a problem that cannot be solved by words alone. A constant desire for some to be in power has turned those in our society into attackers - not physically, or even intellectually, but rather by cowardly accusation. Political correctness is shying away from simply being common courtesy and is turning into an epidemic. We accuse each other of being sexist if we say "mailman" instead of "mailperson." We accuse each other as being racist if we say "Indian" instead of "Native American." Your opinion of either entity does not change regardless of the term. Our attention is being focused not on the issues that matter, but rather on our defense. Why must we lower ourselves to such abysmal depths of linguistic nonsense? Because if we don't, our social doom will be swift, certain and inevitable. The worst thing to be labeled is a sexist or a racist. We must resort to learning how to communicate in this pathetic dialect that accentuates the appeasement of everyone and the offense of no one. We must sacrifice what was given to us in the constitution so we can succeed in a society with a politically correct social disease.

What used to be called the "Department of War" is now the Department of Defense. Bank tellers are supposed to refer to a disabled person as "a person with a disability," emphasizing his personhood first and not his disability. In business, "greed" has become the more positive sounding "profit motives." Special interest groups have transformed and, likewise, "anti-abortion" morphed into "pro-choice" and likewise "pro-life" into "anti-choice." "Used" becomes "Pre-Owned." "Liberals" have become "Progressives." Changes that were once somewhat necessary have become tiresome and pretentious. "Loser" becomes "second place." "Garbage men" become "Garbage people," and then become "sanitation workers" - which totally disassociates and dehumanizes the act of collecting smelly trash but at least gives those numerous female sanitation workers all the respect they've always wanted. (Notice my sarcasm.) Stealing one from George Carlin, "Shell shock" has become the verbose "Post traumatic stress disorder." This change disrespects the military veterans who actually experienced the horrors of battle - the mustard gas, the trenches, the death and destruction - just in sacrifice for all of today's super-sensitive. These euphemisms have been created by a manipulative, elitist few.

The term "politically correct" derives itself from Communism. Karl Marx coined the term P.C. as a cute reversal of C.P. (The Communist Party), and used it as propaganda. Even Hitler mastered the art of speaking in such a way that controlled the minds of others. Presently, The New York Times will give you more than a whiff of politically correct language. Much of the colorful, adjective- packed, progressive prose in The Times is on the threshold of up-to-date politically correctness. It has been used in various forms all over the spectrum, liberal to conservative, to brainwash others by manipulating the way of speaking.

The social and political implications of an artificial, politically correct language are destructive. The only things coming out of politicians' mouths are perfectly orchestrated pieces of well-planned sentimental glop. We have candidates being elected due to their (or their speechwriter's) magical talent of spitting out happy dribble, not due to character or morality or anything else that defines greatness. This new breed of language is a force to be reckoned with, putting more emphasis on one sentence that than a whole life of achievement. Any public figure that makes a politically incorrect statement is immediately attacked by the American media. David Howard, a Washington mayoral aide, used the word "niggardly" as a synonym for "stingy." Howard did not intend the racial epithet, it was a legitimate definition that a dictionary would confirm. However, the public and media were quick to accuse him of being racist, and he turned into a victim of political correctness run amok. Rush Limbaugh is the new target, although his statements were probably more racially directed, and therefore unacceptable. But there is a danger in letting one statement alone have such a huge impact on careers. Political Correctness can even cause controversy with those like John Lennon, who once said, "Only those with no hope take drugs." Bill Maher's show was canceled from ABC because he made a perfectly viable comment about the misuse of the word "cowardly" to describe the acts of terror on 9/11. This man's show was actually called "Politically Incorrect," and it was cancelled due to a controversial statement. There is a danger in encouraging those in the public sector to speak flawlessly. It will subliminally sway our attention from meaningful substance and force us to concentrate our attention on controversy and form. We will find it is impossible to satisfy the ears of everyone - we will just be fighting a futile battle we will never win. Every Targum column has its naysayers. Every speaker has protesters. Every optimist has skeptics. Don't live by them.

George Orwell once said, "All language is political." Perhaps we should address the actual issues themselves, not just sugarcoat them with an artificial and dangerous sense of false security. Understanding the world around us is contingent upon language. When that language is manipulated by the powerful, elitist source that seeks to use it as propaganda for a cause, language becomes a force to be reckoned with. When that force only appeals to the aesthetic and the superficial, we solve nothing; we achieve nothing. We cover up our problems with a fake blanket. This is America. We have the freedom to say whatever we want. Let's come together, stop accusing each other of things for our own political reasons and advancements, and talk the way we want. Let's have the courage to say what we feel. Because when it comes down to it, euphemisms suck! Well perhaps "suck" is much too vulgar a word; so I "dislike" them. Maybe I shouldn't judge a word based on its shallow qualities; so I suppose I find euphemisms "disagreeable with my preferences, per se."

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays.

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.