Evidently Vanderbilt University's idea of a fair and balanced remembrance of September 11 is to invite nine liberal socialists to bash America for two hours and send everybody home holding their head in shame at being in fact - Americans.

That's how VU marked the fifth commemoration of September 11, 2006. Seducing students to a meeting titled, "After 9/11: A Time for Reflection."

Evidently the idea of even allowing one mildly right-of-center thinker was too intimidating for the slanted, biased, anti-American carnival barkers that lined up for two hours and told the gathered students why 9/11 was America's fault. Everything from global warming to the treatment of Native Americans was thrown into the mix. Slavery and racism were especially big reasons as stated by one of the weak leftist thinkers.

Yes, Middle Eastern jihadists attacked America because of slavery and race issues. I guess we are to understand that they recognize the race issue in America so well is in large part because the fact that they have been systematically hoping, planning, and attempting the annihilation of the Jewish bloodline since the days of Isaac and Ishmael.

What the nine liberals on the panel truly demonstrated was some of the most twisted logic that philosophy, psychology, divinity, history, and anthropology professors have ever spoken.

Some examples lifted out of the full video presentation viewable here:

"Many fear that 9/11, which was promised to be a turning point, has degenerated into a dark period of American history. The tragedy there has brought unnecessary death and destruction to tens of thousands of people... Should we be engaged in a war on terror?" David Wood, Professor of Philosophy

“It’s also very difficult to talk about causes when you are not sure what actually happened. Have we been told the truth? Have the questions been answered? Do we have all the information that we need? I don’t think we do!” Beth Conklin, Professor of Anthropology

"I think it is very salutary to realize that is also the ideology for example that animated us in WWII. We were under attack. We were in great peril. And we were going to fight back in self defense, and we were willing to sacrifice innocents, large numbers, as long as we felt it was in self defense of the greater cause. What that does then is it establishes a common moral ground, a disturbing one, between the extremist who attacked us, because we have also engaged in that kind of logic. We just haven’t been willing to do it with the kind of threshold we call extremist in this case." Michael Bess, Professor of History Continued...