Some of the comments Bennish made to his captive class of students included that the US is the "single most violent nation on planet earth" and that it is a "quote unquote democracy."
Note: The "quote unquote" comment was, undoubtedly, meant to disparage and diminish the US as a democracy. Although, I doubt that Bennish is even remotely aware of the fact that the United States of America's governmental form is that of a "representative Republic."
Bennish went on to spew his "facts" that capitalism is "at odds with human rights," President Bush's January State of the Union address included "things that Adolph Hitler used to say" and Israel is a "Zionist state." He's not only anti-US, anti-President-Bush and a pro-Marxist proponent but, he also appears to be anti-Semitic. Bennish, however, claims to be a Rostofarian — one of the "Ganga (marijuana) is good for you" crowd. Bennish also questioned that Hamas is a terrorist group, when he responded to a statement by one of his students (also on the 20-minute tape) that Hamas is a terrorist group. Bennish asked the student: "Who is defining what is a terrorist?"
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060302
Inuyasha said:Judge Andrew Napolitano says no and so do I. As much as you may not like his message it is protected by the Constitution....so far says the good judge. As long as he doesn't threaten anyone he's going to stay. Anyway the whole story is not really out there yet because the media thinks it's a "non-story", except FNC.
The United States Supreme Court did not decide a significant case with respect to the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause until 1919. In that unanimous decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it was done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This case, Schenck v. United States, grew out of the federal government’s security concerns during World War I.
http://hnn.us/articles/8591.html
Inuyasha said:Judge Andrew Napolitano says no and so do I. As much as you may not like his message it is protected by the Constitution....so far says the good judge. As long as he doesn't threaten anyone he's going to stay. Anyway the whole story is not really out there yet because the media thinks it's a "non-story", except FNC.
Che said:I love how this radical consevative near nazi website says he's anti-semitic, pro-hamas, and thus pro-marxist. Just blows my mind. Do they even know what Marx believed in? I hate these type of websites because they are a biased piece of crap. Destroying America's generations LOL. You'd think people would say war and pverty and world hunger would be ruining our next generation, but no. **** that. Cons don't care about that. It's one crackpot teacher that's ruining our next generation!
Really? Wow, I must be operating under faulty definitions for either 'conservatism' or 'fascism', 'cuz that whole "typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life" (lifted from wikipedia.com) doesn't sound all that antithetical with dictating what type of sex you aren't allowed to have, or wiretapping without even a sembalance of oversight, or categorically denying parenthood to a particular class of citizens, or...need I go on?Trajan Octavian Titus said:And conservatism is the antithesis to statist fascism...
Befuddled_Stoner said:Really? Wow, I must be operating under faulty definitions for either 'conservatism' or 'fascism',
'cuz that whole "typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life"
(lifted from wikipedia.com) doesn't sound all that antithetical with dictating what type of sex you aren't allowed to have,
or wiretapping without even a sembalance of oversight,
or categorically denying parenthood to a particular class of citizens, or...need I go on?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:In case you haven't heard this guys comments heres a clip from an article on the subject, I've heard the tape this is what this guy actually said:
I say that this scum bag has no place in the classroom what say you?
MAURER8 said:Yes!!! It is not just because of what he said, but what his job is teaching Geography, not political sicence. If somebody in the private secture did not do their job they loose theirs. I have listened to the recording and to the person who recorded it. From what the student said he did this often, so it was not a one time thing. If it was one time thing I would go along with suspension. I understand the students do not want him fired. These are 15 year old students, who are still learning about life's lessons. This is also an oppurtunity for the students to get a lesson in life, while I would here them out, I would still fire him. It would teach them that you will be held accountable for your actions and suffer for it. Besides the students do not run the school and that also something they need to learn.
Gardener said:The question I might pose to all here is whether your answer would be the same were your own ideology involved? Say, the teacher was advancing political notions consistant with those radio talk shows you like? All you folks who like to use those terms "you liberals" with the frequency you do -- what if he were talking like Mr. Savage or Ms. Coulter? Would you be up in arms then? For those who think his indoctrination is okey dokey because you happen to agree with it, same question.
As for me, I think the fellow has no business teaching kids if he cannot separate his political opinions from his teaching of geography. Since my answer is based upon consistant principles, I think his actual point of view is less relevant than the fact that he is indulging in the indoctrination. I have found that it is usually the extremists who indulge in this sort of behavior, but whether one is extreme left like this fellow or extreme right like Savage or Coulter, the stuff does not belong in a classroom devoted to the teaching of geography.
It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up, "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country." Of course, the document would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.
But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the [p52] main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462. We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that, if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917, in § 4, punishes conspiracies to obstruct, as well as actual obstruction. If the act (speaking, or circulating a paper), its tendency, and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477. Indeed, that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But, as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.
Inuyasha said:Judge Andrew Napolitano says no and so do I. As much as you may not like his message it is protected by the Constitution....so far says the good judge. As long as he doesn't threaten anyone he's going to stay. Anyway the whole story is not really out there yet because the media thinks it's a "non-story", except FNC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?