In the latest installment of “Political Correctness Run Amuck On Campus,” a University of Tennessee student got an F in a class on sedimentary rocks and was accused of sexual harassment under Title IX for guessing his female lab instructor’s name wrong. On a quiz, students were asked to fill in the lab assistant’s name, and if they didn’t know, “make up something good.” The student didn’t know, so he filled in the most generic female name he could think of: “Sarah Jackson.”

It turns out that is the name of a lingerie/nude model. The professor accused him of trying to sexually humiliate the lab instructor and said since there was no way to determine his intentions, the F and sexual harassment accusation stands. But wait a minute: if there’s “no way to determine his intentions,” then how did the professor determine that he meant it as a sexist slur? He implied that the student should've known that Sarah Jackson is a nude model. Really? If he had known that, wouldn't THAT have made him a sexist, under the liberal definition?

The student claims he'd never heard of a nude model named Sarah Jackson. I believe him because I never have, either. Yet somehow, the professor instantly recognized “Sarah Jackson” as a nude model. The student’s parents are appealing this outrageous decision. If I were them, I’d threaten a subpoena to look at the browser history of the professor who saw the name “Sarah Jackson” and whose first thought was, “She’s that nude model!” That might get this reversed in a New York second.

A Tragic Irony

July 11, 2016

One of the tragic ironies of the racist Dallas police shootings is that Dallas has an African-American Police Chief, David Brown, who’s been widely acclaimed for maintaining both police discipline and good community relations while bringing the murder and violent crime rates way down. Dallas has even been described as a model for other big city police departments. Just look at the praise coming from the protesters, who are calling the Dallas cops heroes for putting their lives on the line to protect the very people who were there to protest them. Chief Brown just gave a news conference in which he said something that’s needed to be said for a long time to the professional agitators who are stirring up the blanket condemnation of police: If you want the job done differently, then why don’t you do it yourself?

Brown noted that the Dallas Police have been hamstrung by low pay (rookie cops make less than dog catchers) and the resulting loss of officers to higher-paying suburbs. So Brown said to the “Black Lives Matter” supporters that the Dallas Police are hiring: come fill out an application, take the training and become cops yourself. He even offered to assign the new hires to their own neighborhoods. Let’s see what kind of reaction that offer gets. Will the critics line up to show the cops how to police their neighborhoods in a caring, compassionate way? Or will they decide it’s a heck of a lot safer to keep letting someone else face danger and potential death at every turn, and then attack them for not handling it right?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/11/dallas-chief-13-officers-used-force-stop-rampage/86942116/

The recent mass shooting in Orlando will go down in history as the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

Wait, I need to tell you that in the previous sentence, emphasis should be placed on the word “history.” That’s a very important word. We all need to keep in mind that history is being written with every new example of terrorist carnage that comes our way.

So why does the Obama Administration insist on re-writing it?

Like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s novel 1984, scribes and spinners at the Justice Department are busy turning it into our very own Ministry Of Truth, dropping inconvenient references to Islam down the memory hole to create their own version of what is happening. The rationale they offer for their novelization of the facts is so ridiculous that they may as well admit it: they’re telling lies about why they’re telling lies.

On Sunday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch went on the Sunday shows (our collective antennae should go up any time someone from this administration does that) to tell us that “partial transcripts” of Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s 911 calls would be made public. Wait a minute --- partial? On CNN, she said the redaction was done “to avoid re-victimizing those that went through this horror. But it will contain the substance of his conversations.”

Reality check: the omissions from this record include references to Islam and ISIS, and it makes no sense to say they were made for the reason she states. The opposite could, in fact, be argued: that in creating a fiction about the motive for the killings, they further victimize the people who suffered. Those people are owed the truth.

And the edited versions absolutely do not contain the substance of the killer’s conversations. In his actual calls to 911, he repeatedly pledges allegiance to ISIS. Commentator Pamela Geller has pointed out that his very first words are the Islamic prayer. The terrorist speaks of Allah, but the word “Allah” never appears in the government-approved version. “Allah” is changed to “God [in Arabic].”

Reading through the reworked transcript, one might think some enraged Presbyterian had taken up arms for no particular reason and slaughtered 49 people. This is the version of history our government wants us to see. But in this context, the words “God” and “Allah” are hardly interchangeable. When mouthed by a terrorist, the word “Allah” means something very specific. It means hatred fueled by twisted religious fervor.

Ironically, by trying so hard to purge history of the terrorists’ real motives, President Obama gives us good reason to question his own.