Can January 20th, 2017 get here any faster?
Boss Obama, speaking while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, said that "unless an American citizen is a Native American, they potentially have a family history of illegal immigration."
Given that "progressives" are so adamant about "nuance" and "living history," how is it that "constitutional scholar" Obama can recognize NO difference between 400 years ago ... and today?
The California State Senate votes to exempt itself from its own strict gun control laws. The vote was 28-8.
Y'see, they're more important than YOU. They deserve protection. Not YOU.
Cali legislators also average approximately $140,000 in annual compensation. They get a free car and gasoline. Among other things.
And you thought things were wacky here in the one-party state of Delaware.
"Right to privacy" = right kill an unborn child in the womb.
"Right to privacy" does NOT = right to avoid a grown, biological man watching you pee.
In fact, any laws contrary to the latter are like Jim Crow laws, according to our illustrious Attorney General.
That's right, if you don't want your young daughter going to a restroom with a grown person with a penis, you're just like the segregationist, racist bigots of the 1950s-60s South.
Here's what states like North Carolina ought to do: Establish "sanctuary bathrooms" which are (biologically) gender specific. Merely play the "progressives'" own game. And stick to it.
Boss Obama may send the name of Merrick Garland to the Senate for US Supreme Court consideration, but if you believe in the Second Amendment, beware.
[...] Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.
And Boss Obama has suggested he'd nominate a "moderate." Right.
The back-asswards tumble of American society down the toilet drain continues:
A Miami woman shot and killed a teenage home intruder last week, authorities said. Now, relatives of the teen are saying she acted unjustly and should be prosecuted.
Trevon Johnson, 17, burglarized the home of a 54-year-old old woman last Thursday, according to Miami-Dade police.
“She observed a subject leaving the home through the rear,” police Detective Dan Ferrin told WFOR-TV.
A confrontation then took place, according to police, and shots were fired. Police said they were on scene seconds after the shooting and performed CPR on the teen. Johnson was then rushed to the hospital where doctors pronounced him dead.
“What’s wrong with her?” Johnson’s sister Nisha Johnson asked. “She did not have to shoot him.”
Johnson told WFOR her brother was a student at D. A. Dorsey Technical College. She and other relatives are outraged by the shooting.
“I don’t care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond the law … way beyond,” Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris told WFOR. “He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals … he was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.”
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” Harris continued. “You have to understand … how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point of view.”
No one, but no one who illegally enters a house to rob it has any expectation of personal safety. None. Period.
There appears to be a tad bit more of a gray area here in that the suspect had already exited the home. However, if the homeowner confronted the suspect as noted, and the suspect responded with hostile intent, well, again, see above.
But the response of the suspect's relatives is beyond amazing. Is this what we're to expect next in American society? That merely because someone was raised in the "hood" others should have a "reasonable expectation" that such individuals may rob them?
This shouldn't come as a surprise at all:
It's not in my nature to celebrate someone's death. But I'm delighted that homophobic racist is off the Supreme Court.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) February 15, 2016
Obama was elected Precedent. Twice. https://t.co/zEludRfzIk— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) February 14, 2016
But, according to Marz, because Obama was elected (twice), this means he should get whatever he wants. Never mind that the decisions he made after being elected (twice) led to losing the House of Representatives and, more importantly, the Senate.
Y'know, the Senate which has the constitutional power to approve or reject the president's Supreme Court nominees.
Proof conservatives only like the Constitution when it serves them. Obama has the right and duty to appoint. https://t.co/9rZ4YcsOgE— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) February 13, 2016
Read above, too, Dan Slott:
THIS! THIS! THIS! https://t.co/xdGXxmzCk8— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 14, 2016
And be sure to check out Mark Waid's timeline -- all chock full of selected quotes and instances of GOP SCOTUS politicization, but nary a word on those Democratic. Like Chuck Schumer calling for blocking all of George W. Bush's appointees. Or when, in 1960, when Democrats wanted to nix any election year SCOTUS appointments (remember, Eisenhower was prez that year).
Not to mention, here's then-Senator Obama himself on the "president won the election so he should get what he wants" line:
“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”
Always remember, those of you on the right side of the political spectrum (or even in the center) -- this is what contemporary comicbook folk think of you and your beliefs.
It's insanity like this:
Police were responding to a report of a stolen car when they ran Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno and found he was facing a deportation order, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. He would later be turned over to federal immigration agents.
Figueroa-Zarceno was subject to deportation for failure to appear at an immigration hearing in 2015 and from a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, the Chronicle reported.
The San Francisco Police Department has since launched an investigation to determine if any officers involved are subject to discipline for a possible breach of local sanctuary-city laws.
“We want to make sure that the police officers who committed this offense and obviously violated the law themselves are held accountable,” Jeff Adachi, a public defender, told KGO.
Taking the absurdity a step further, the department celebrated the illegal immigrant’s release back into the community — Figueroa-Zarceno, who has lawyered up, was released on bail Wednesday after being held for two months.
“We are happy and relieved that Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno has been restored to his family,” SFPD spokesman Sgt. Michael Andraychak said, according to the Chronicle. (Source)
"Rule of law" applies only to little people. And non-"progressives."
Remember, if you question in any way the science behind
global warming climate change, you're "anti-science."
So, I wonder what that makes the ghouls at NARAL -- the National Abortion Rights Action League -- since they've taken issue with a Doritos ad from last night's Super Bowl:
(By the way, NARAL's current name is "NARAL Pro-Choice America," having altered it several times apparently to make it more "socially palatable." I decided to use the one which best describes its mission.)
... "progressives" have immediately jumped on the fact that a Texas grand jury has indicted the two people responsible for the undercover sting videos of Planned Parenthood, meaning the latter is completely exonerated? But ...
... when it's a grand jury refusing to indict a cop who used deadly force (especially against a minority), it's a miscarriage of justice and an indictment of the justice system itself, right?
New Philly mayor Jim Kenney restores his town to "sanctuary city" status.
And look at the chick's raised fist of approval. Isn't that sweet?
Meanwhile, the Left is all aghast at the Oregon "standoff" by some militia types.
Regarding this, and the ridiculous contradictions and hypocrisy, National Review's Kevin D. Williamson sums it up perfectly:
"But it's illegal!" So was Obama's war in Libya and Mrs. Clinton's email scheme. So are 20 million illegal immigrants. Sounds of silence.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 3, 2016
"But it's illegal!" So was the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. Who is up for indicting President Obama?— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
You can screech "It's illegal!" when Lois Lerner is in federal prison and Melissa Click is the county jail.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
When the law is enforced against citizens but not against those in government, you don't have the rule of law.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
Anyone think there'll be "firearm sanctuary cities" following Boss Obama's upcoming executive orders on gun control? If so, what's the big deal, "progressives"? You pick and choose which laws should be followed, and those in government are rarely, if ever, prosecuted for breaking 'em, so ...?
"School choice should be easy, consistent and nondiscriminatory" says the Delaware Enrollment Preferences Task Force, and this means, in part, not having to provide any sort of identification to school officials.
"Our students do not care what party we are aligned with and they deserve schools that will, first and foremost, accept them and then nurture and educate them in a way that ensures that Delaware's future is bright," Task Force Co-chair Kim Williams, a Democratic state legislator representing Newport and Stanton, wrote in the report's foreword.
The report also noted that most task force members believe parents should never be asked to prove Delaware residency, provide proof of identity or show their child's birth certificate to school officials.
So, this task force cares not that Delaware taxpayers would fit the bill for those coming across the PA state line to attend northern Wilmington schools? Really?? Hey, a reminder: You represent us.
In addition, group members recommend that schools not be able to inquire as to the behavior (re: misbehavior) of school choice/charter applicants. In other words, if a kid has been suspended numerous times, the potential school shouldn't know ahead of time. Sounds just dandy! (/sarcasm)
Here's an idea: Why doesn't this task force take a poll about these concerns? Anyone wanna bet that the results will be akin to those regarding voter ID?
Just another reason why your average play-by-the-rules voter is beyond fed up.
If it isn't Keith Olbermann going on a rant about the "stolen" 2004 election, or Mike Lupica ripping on the GOP for something, there's always someone else in the sports realm to pick up the slack.
In this case, it's Doug Gottlieb who wants -- well, wanted -- everyone to know that the Second Amendment is NOT part of the US Constitution:
Naturally, like any swarmy dope who finally realized he made an ass of himself, Dougie deleted this tweet with no accompanying explanation. Because, you see, he's better than you, dammit!
The poor elite Left -- they just can't figure out what the f*** they want.
Headline in the Philly Inquirer today: "Paris terror fuels fear of American Muslims." It features the tale of a guy who's been here for 15 years, an immigrant from the West Bank, who was detained for a whole two minutes after passengers heard him speaking Arabic.
"They gave us that look - like we were terrorists," he says.
Naturally, the Inquirer wants this story to pull at your heartstrings. They even quote the laughable CAIR -- Council on American-Islamic Relations -- as saying after the Paris terror attacks there has been "an 'unprecedented backlash' against Muslims to an extent not seen since the days after Sept. 11, 2001."
Meanwhile, Jews remain overwhelmingly the target of anti-religious hate, not Muslims, and it's not even close:
So, we're supposed to get all irate about a dude getting questioned at an airport for a few minutes after speaking Arabic, but we should just nod and say "thank you" to stuff like this:
As Glenn Reynolds says, "Now let me take your guns away based on a secret list that only I control."
After the IRS debacle and people like Fox News contributor Steve Hayes being placed on the "no-fly" list, not to mention the innumerable lies and obfuscations the administration has promulgated over these seven years -- with emphasis on its opinions regarding firearm ownership (or lack thereof) -- is there any ... ANY ... wonder about conservative skepticism?
Quite related: Our buddy Ron Marz:
No Fly List: Never have so many, been so concerned, about the rights of so very few, to buy as many guns as they can possibly have.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 7, 2015
The first find was nothing less than staggering—a fax from Jody Powell, President Jimmy Carter’s press secretary, to George Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s new press secretary, warning Clinton to back off from gun control because … it just doesn’t work.
“If there is an area that needs ‘new thinking,’ ‘rethinking,’ ‘a different kind of Democrat’ and all that, crime/gun control is it. From the outside this does not appear to be happening. What I hear and read sounds like the same old ideas being presented with the same worn-out rhetoric.
“Much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control measures inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime and criminals.”
Powell goes to note that, even though he supports gun registration "in principle," one has to ask: "Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance?"
Of all people, Bill Clinton's then-press secretary George Stephanopoulos wrote on Powell's fax sheet "This makes a lot sense."
Tying into today's previous post and the new Captain America: Civil War trailer, how is it that "progressives" are so in favor of taking away law abiding folks' means to protect and defend themselves, yet are loath to even register super-powered mutants with the government?
Former X-Men writer Chris Claremont was the first to raise the spectre of a "mutant registration act" back in the classic X-Men #141-142, "Days of Future Past." The dystopian "future" of 2013 came about as a result of Senator Kelly's assassination by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. But the resulting passage of the "Mutant Control Act" was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, so the government (presumably the legislative and executive branches working together) brought back the Sentinel program.
Kitty Pryde, who traveled back to 1980 to prevent Kelly's assassination (in the comics; in the film version it was Wolverine), said "bless 'em" regarding the Supreme Court's ruling while recounting to the X-Men how the future comes about. Moira MacTaggert says about the Act "Registration today, gas chambers tomorrow."
Senator Kelly pops back up in X-Men #158:
After Friday's mass shooting at a shopping center in Colorado Springs, President Obama issued his usual vague call for more gun control.
We have to do something, the president says. But what exactly? It is not surprising that Obama did not bother to address that question, because there is no good answer to it.
According to people who knew him, John Dear, the man arrested for killing three people and injuring nine in last week's attack, was an eccentric, off-putting loner with anger issues. But he apparently did not have the sort of criminal or psychiatric record that would have prevented him from legally buying a gun.
NBC News adds "there would have been nothing apparent in Dear's background—including a felony conviction or previous mental health issue—that would have disqualified him from buying firearms."
The usual suspects like Dan Slott and Ron Marz have their Twitter feeds chock full of snarky comments about guns and the right-wing, but like with Boss Obama you never actually see real solutions proposed.
Obama has mentioned that Australia is a model the US could look to; however, Australia confiscated firearms from private ownership. I've no doubt that that is ultimately what the president would like here, but he sure ain't gonna get that with an executive order. As I noted, the only real "short-term solution" is getting a liberal Supreme Court justice who will provide the needed balance tip to "reinterpret" the 2nd Amendment.
So what is it, "progressives?" Why not just come out and say it -- you want to ban private ownership of guns? If you want more restrictions, like what, for instance?
Take Marz's comment:
Seems like just the sort of fellow who should be able to buy a gun with no questions asked. https://t.co/SrkW9EYB2i— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 29, 2015
Continue to challenge the 2nd Amendment clueless. Because the mainstream media sure won't.
"Lois Lerner is free. Kim Davis was imprisoned. Hillary is free. Filmmaker is in prison." -- John Nolte
Isn't just great how ObumbleCare was passed with such overwhelming public and bipartisan support??
From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband’s White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers, [Hillary] Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.
Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.
She truly is the perfect leader for America’s moment of permanent constitutional crisis: a person who cares more about results than process, who cares more about winning the battle than being well-liked, and a person who believes in asking what she can get away with rather than what would look best.
In other words, f*** the Constitution and how things are supposed to work. If she doesn't get what she wants, she just do it anyway.
Such is banana republic politics.
Via The Corner.
"Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?"
That'd be the gun-free society that the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt desires.
Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ...?
Indeed. After Black Lives Matter protests about police brutality, a federal government that sics the IRS on people/groups it doesn't like, a Secret Service who divulges private information on a political opponent ... yes, by all means, let's only allow the government to possess guns.
There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.
The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again.
No, the SCOTUS got it exactly right. But those who want to ignore history and intent will always do so for political gain.
But Hiatt is correct in that it will take the SCOTUS to enable gun confiscation. At least in the short term. We're only one justice away from it. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a cumbersome process and it will be quite some time, if ever, for the political will to allow it.
If the SCOTUS does dare to overturn its fairly recent decisions affirming an individual's right to own a gun, you may see civil disobedience unlike that since the Revolution.
He wants us to emulate Great Britain and Australia? They've confiscated guns.
Now how could Boss Obama actually effect such a program here?
We know repealing, or modifying, the 2nd Amendment is out of the question. Such will never garner the requisite votes.
His best hope is that the Supreme Court reverses course from its fairly recent decisions solidifying an individual right to own a gun. It wouldn't happen with the court's current make-up, but if just one of the conservative justices is replaced with a staunch liberal, they could then "revisit" the matter and do a 180.
Of course, it would be outrageously unpopular, and I'd wager it would lead to outright open defiance.
Seriously. PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is suing a photographer "in hopes of giving a monkey copyright ownership of a selfie."
Yet, we still have the ridiculous argument about whether a fetus is actually a "human." Hell, our US Senate won't even pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks.
Where are all the American "progressives" citing the typical "we need to be more like Europe" now? Oh, that's right -- because Europe is actually quite a bit more conservative in the abortion realm.
Actually, Brady might not have even been a target at all in Deflategate had not now-Commissioner Roger Goodell done such a lousy job handling the Spygate scandal in the early-mid 2000s. Many see Goodell as "trying to set things right" by coming down hard on Brady and the Pats now after letting them off lightly then.
If you still think the Patriots are above board and legit, I suggest you read this exhaustive ESPN exposé.
The new Daredevil creative team will be giving the Man Without Fear an ... illegal immigrant as a sidekick.
Remember -- Matt Murdock is a lawyer.
... but such measures may actually be ineffective in preventing illegal voting.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
If they mean 6.4 percent of 11 million illegal immigrants … we’re talking about roughly 700,000 votes being cast by non-citizens in 2008. Stunning.
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
So, not only is the "progressive" claim that voter fraud not being a problem false, the main effort to combat is actually not very effective.
Just imagine if someone comes up with a better method to combat the fraud.
Remember, there's no gun problem in America. Everything's fine. #Louisiana— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 24, 2015
And so on ...
Not to mention why blowhard Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls: Rules for Delaware immigrant driving card debated.
Gotta love how this local story focuses (in part) on an illegal immigrant who's "fearful" about the fingerprint requirement, and who complains that taking the bus is "very slow to get to work or to go to other places."
Yeah, she's so "fearful" that she allowed the News Journal to take her picture, and she even pointed out that she works at a McDonald's.
That's probably because, unfortunately, the reality here in ultra-blue Delaware is that unless someone engages in a Kathryn Steinle-style murder, (illegal) immigrants have little to be worried about.
Megyn Kelly on Boss Obama's "priorities":
Kate [Steinle]’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, and crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these cities’ decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security.
A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson. A man we know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally and his administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed. Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco?
Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the president spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Katie Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
Obama has a bit over a year left in office. If the answer isn't obvious by now, you're a moron.
Jim Geraghty from his e-mailed Morning Jolt adds:
The message from the White House was pretty clear after the Trayvon Martin shooting, Ferguson, and Baltimore: This is a legitimate reason for outrage, and we’re as outraged as you are. The silence from the White House indicates Katie Steinle’s murder is not a cause for outrage. And while Donald Trump made his comments about crimes committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico before Steinle’s murder, the gang-tackling denunciation indicates that quite a few media voices believe that just bringing up the issue of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is somehow illegitimate or morally wrong.
But of course. It's just like anyone who wants a secure border, better immigration enforcement, and no assorted perks for illegals (like drivers licenses, in-state college tuition) is "anti-immigrant." It's a pathetic, sad joke, put forth by "progressives" like Boss Obama and perpetuated by the dopes in the mainstream media.
Donald Trump is an opportunistic blowhard, but his I-don't-care honesty has struck a chord with the anti-PC segment of the population.
The "sanctuary city" bullsh** has to end. As WPHT radio's Rich Zeoli was tweeting last week, why don't people begin thumbing their collective noses at other laws ... and declare a "sanctuary city" against those laws?
Our pal Ron Marz is at it again, blindly taking the NY Times (among other MSM advocates, not reporters) at face value:
Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says http://t.co/q3ytxCtuUN Well, gosh, let's not fix that loophole!— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 11, 2015
Except that it wasn't a loophole. The MSM, though, like the "progressive" administration, has a need to portray Roof's acquisition of a gun as such.
What actually happened is that someone at the FBI didn't do her job:
Two days after Mr. Roof tried to buy the weapon (which would be the FIRST business day after Roof's Saturday, April 11 attempt to purchase — Ed.), an examiner at the F.B.I.’s national background check center in Clarksburg, W.Va., began investigating his criminal history. The examiner found that Mr. Roof had been arrested this year on a felony drug charge, but not convicted. The charge alone would not have prevented him from buying the gun under federal law. But evidence that Mr. Roof had been convicted of a felony or was a drug addict would have resulted in a denial, so she continued to investigate his background.
Because Mr. Roof had been arrested in a small part of Columbia that is in Lexington County and not in Richland County, where most of the city is, the examiner was confused about which police department to call. She ultimately did not find the right department and failed to obtain the police report. Had the examiner gained access to the police report, she would have seen that Mr. Roof had admitted to having been in possession of a controlled substance and she would have issued a denial.
The examiner, however, did send a request to the Lexington County prosecutor’s office, which had charged him, inquiring about the case. The prosecutor’s office, however, did not respond.
Around that time the three-day waiting period expired, and Mr. Roof returned to the store and purchased the gun.
Be sure to continue reading, because that's not the end of it. The FBI can still keep investigating after the 3-day waiting period. But it didn't, despite the confusion in Roof's case.
Bottom line is the laws and procedures should have worked here, but the employee(s) charged with carrying them out did not do so.
This week we saw the Supreme Court, on at least in two major instances, outright ignore plain language and substitute what they thought the "intent" was.
Regarding ObumbleCare, the word "states" doesn't mean, well, "states."
Regarding the Arizona state legislature's right to draw legislative districts, the word "legislature" doesn't mean "legislature."
The latter is even worse, arguably, because the words are not in a mere law, but in the Constitution itself.
As I recently opined, how long will it be before we're told that "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean "the right to bear arms"?
From the Colossus time machine:
Recent refresher: The SCOTUS held that "The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. "
Turns out it was a complete fabrication. Y'know, to get some popular will for the law.
Then there was this:
Then he "evolved" on the issue. So much so that we got this the other day:
So, remember this:
But there was always stuff like this prior to 2008, too. And, just like the above, we were treated to "palatable" answers necessary for election. The press didn't seem concerned about it (why would they? Stealth gun control fits their agenda), and just like the situation with Reverend Wright, in whose church Obama sat for twenty years, words speak louder than actions.
So get ready, America. The Second Amendment is next. If anything happens to a member of the conservative bloc of the SCOTUS, or even Anthony Kennedy, and Obama or Hillary get to nominate a new justice, watch out. McDonald v. Chicago will be revisited and overturned.
Or perhaps, the way things are going, Obama or Hillary won't even try to wait for that. There is a GOP-majority Senate, after all, which still has to approve a president's nominee. There still is that form of checks and balances. For now.
Would it really surprise anybody today if Obama (or Hillary) tried something like this? Sure, Kennedy (and Roberts, in one instance) gave 'em what they wanted this week.
But their palates have only been whetted.
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, of these three items, I believe the (rightful) gay marriage conclusion was inevitable, either via the SCOTUS or the states. Obama's (and Hillary's) supposed "evolution" on the issue, while obviously brazenly politically calculating, no doubt hastened the settlement of the issue.
Comics guy Ron Marz, Bill of Rights expert:
Wrong. (Spoken) Hatred doesn't "try to pass itself off" as free speech in the United States. It is free speech. (The Chaplinsky standard being an exception, which doesn't apply here.)
As with the Marz-ian crowd who were apoplectic about George W. Bush's "shredding" of the Constitution but are now virtually silent about that of Barack Obama, "progressives" really need to be careful in what they wish for when it comes to free expression, and lack thereof.
What speech they like may be what a right-leaning leader doesn't. And what will Ron Marz and crowd yammer about then when said leader says "Hatred trying to pass itself off as free speech is still hatred" ... and should be thwarted?
The WaPo is reporting that a prisoner in the same van as Freddie Gray claims the now-deceased Gray was attempting to injure himself in the police van that was transporting him.
Given the police-community situation in Baltimore, how plausible is it that the cops offered some sort of deal to that prisoner to say what he said about Gray?
Meanwhile, one of the biggest idiots in the Delaware blogosphere offers this up about Baltimore and the riots that followed:
The very same tea party “patriots” who have been decrying government and authority for 7 years now are telling anyone who listen that you can never question police authority.
Attention Delaware Douche: What party has been in control of Baltimore for over 40 years? What party has controlled its police department? And haven't African-Americans been running the show there ... including the PD?
But let's make this about the Tea Party.
Attention Delaware Douche part 2: You're a complete and utter blathering Neanderthal.
Attention Delaware Douche part 3: Maybe you can round up those Tea Partiers and have 'em shot, huh?
Two main points in conclusion:
1) There has to be NO excuse for police brutality. None.
2) It's not society's fault for the bleak situation in many of our inner cities. It's the breakdown of the family. Period. A 70+ percent illegitimacy rate is a catastrophe that cannot -- cannot -- be rectified by government ... or, if you wish, "society."
She at one point said "There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts."
How about this: There is something profoundly wrong when people with little-to-no power are far more likely to be charged with crimes and thrown in jail than people with a lot of power and a great many political connections.
In other words, Hil, "F.O."
Horizon Comics Productions' Ben and Ray Lai are suing Marvel/Disney "claiming that the Iron Man suit featured in the Marvel movies infringes on their comic book series Radix."
Yeah, I never heard of Radix either.
[The] lawsuit states that the “highly detailed, mechanized suits of body armor” that the characters in the comics wear has been appropriated by Marvel and Disney. The lawsuit also claims that the original Marvel comic books “typically depicted Iron Man wearing simple spandex-like attire and minimal armor,” and that it wasn’t until the movies came along that Iron Man began wearing increasingly complex suits of full body armor.
Considering the Lais created Radix in 2001, and that Iron Man debuted in, ahem, 1963, I predict Marvel/Disney will prevail.
Joy-Ann Reid. Al Sharpton. Melissa Harris-Perry. And now Touré. All tax delinquents.
Taxes must be racist.
... but this is just ridiculous, not to mention yet another example of how deranged our administration is:
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing deep concerns over Veterans Affairs evaluations classifying veterans as "mentally defective" and banning them in the federal background check system from purchasing or owning a firearm.
According to Grassley's office, the VA "reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits," keeping them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies. And that percentage remained virtually unchanged as of April 2013. Given the numbers, it is essential to ensure that the process by which the VA reports names to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for placement on the NICS list recognizes and protects the fundamental nature of veterans’ rights under the Second Amendment," Grassley wrote in the letter. "Specifically, once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun ban list, consequently denying his or her right to possess and own firearms.
We know how President Lemon feels about guns; this is just yet another swarmy end run around the Constitution by this cadre of elitists.
Remember -- obeying the law starts at the top. Pretty soon there's going to be a helluva lot of "F*** yous" said to those at the top if this garbage doesn't cease.
And if you want to be freaked out further, be sure to read this.
... ah, hell, you know by now!!
-- Boss Obama considering raising taxes through executive action. Technically it'd be closing tax "loopholes," but the constitutionality is certainly dubious. But when has that ever mattered to the Boss?
-- The Justice Department closed down search for IRS' Lois Lerner's emails. Isn't this the sort of sh** that got Dick Nixon into so much trouble? Oh, right, he was a Republican.
-- What's that? Hillary Clinton never used a government email address while she was Secretary of State? 'Ya gotta be jackin' me! A clear violation of the law, this, but when has that ever been a concern for this administration?
Tweet from the White House yesterday:
Harvard experts on ObumbleCare who opening advocated for the "remedies" involved in such are now -- wait for it! -- AGHAST that said remedies will now be applied to them:
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
Richard F. Thomas, a professor of classics "called the changes 'deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.'”
Mary D. Lewis, a professor of modern France history and a leader of the opposition to the benefit changes, said the changes "were tantamount to a pay cut."
“Moreover,” she said, “this pay cut will be timed to come at precisely the moment when you are sick, stressed or facing the challenges of being a new parent.”
Yeah? Well, get bent. Welcome to the real freakin' world -- and in this case, one which you helped make.
Watch as NYPD officers turn their backs to Mayor Bill De Blasio as he heads to a press conference following the murder of two NYPD officers yesterday:
And apparently that wasn't all that faced the mayor:
deBlasio: "We're all in this together." NYPD Cop: "No we're not!"— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) December 21, 2014
(via FrontPage Mag)
... the "torture" of which most Americans could give a sh** about since 1) the "torture" involved some "harsh" interrogation tactics against barely-human radical Islamist fundies who only want to off Westerners, 2) happened around a decade ago, 3) sorta makes killing terrorists via drone -- along with "collateral" women and children -- seem tame in comparison, and 4) serves to distract from things like Jonathan Gruber continuing to lie (on Capitol Hill this time), and this:
Sadly, the 18 month investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups isn’t over, and it may be worse than anyone thought. A federal judge has broken loose more emails that the DOJ had surely hoped would never surface. The picture it reveals isn’t pretty. The documents prove that Lois Lerner met with DOJ’s Election Crimes Division a month before the 2010 elections.
It has to be embarrassing to the DOJ, which may not be the most impartial one to be investigating the IRS. In fact, the DOJ withheld over 800 pages of Lerner documents citing “taxpayer privacy” and “deliberative privilege.” Yet these internal DOJ documents show Ms. Lerner was talking to DOJ officials about prosecuting tax-exempt entities (yes, criminally!) two years before the IRS conceded there was inappropriate targeting.
Remember, Richard Nixon would have been impeached for much less than this. Look at Article 2, part 1 of his never-used impeachment:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Not to mention, the other parts seem pretty fitting, too.
Ah, the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. They couldn't WAIT for this day. Something -- anything -- to get the subject of the biggest joke of a chief exec ever off the front pages ... even for just a bit.
MARVEL at their hilarious pomposity that "Republicans are for torture," knowing all the while that rendition began under Bill Clinton, and that President Lemon has droned the living f*** out of terrorists -- including known American citizens -- which has had the side effect of offing quite a few women and kiddies.
PONDER how waterboarding and preventing regular sleep of heinous terrorists is somehow "worse" than killing same without the coveted "rights" and "due process" we heard from "progressives" throughout the 2000s.
PUZZLE over why this had to be made public today, when Jonathan Gruber was testifying on the Hill about ObumbleCare and all the associated the lies about that train wreck. Not to mention that barbarians like al Qaeda and ISIS will use this for propaganda gold.
MULL over how Democrats, including the White House, can (laughably) claim some "moral high ground" by releasing this ... saying stuff like "We can do better," while the IRS has systematically targeted right-leaning groups and individuals for years now (something Richard Nixon never did), how we were lied to repeatedly about ObumbleCare which affects one-sixth of our economy, and ....
REALIZE, however, that next month is the beginning of the END for the inept charlatans who've been running our government.
Hey, does anyone think that tomorrow's release of that Senate report on CIA "torture" is anything but coincidental? Not to mention one big middle finger by the outgoing Democrat Senate to George W. Bush?
"There are some indications that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday. "So the administration has taken the prudent steps to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe."
Hey idiots -- then don't release it. If you're so f***ing concerned, then the solution is quite simple.
If you're actually willing to put more American lives in danger because a few hardcore, barbaric Neanderthals who are only dedicated to offing as many Westerners as possible were waterboarded for vital intel, yet you continually refuse to release vital emails about how the country's own quasi-secret police targeted conservative-leaning groups for audits and squelched their free speech rights ... well, that shows you plenty of how your modern Democrat Party -- and current chief exec -- operate.
"The president believes that, on principle, it's important to release that report, so that people around the world and people here at home understand exactly what transpired," Earnest said. He added that "something like this should never happen again."
Spare me. See my paragraph above. The president has no principles, other than to screw over anyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it doesn't matter one f***ing iota if American lives may be put in danger as a result.
... I pretty much agree with Glenn Reynolds.
And hey libs -- if you wouldn't keep passing silly laws ("government is good!") and -- like in this case -- make taxes so ridiculously high that folks resort to black marketeering, then cops wouldn't have to pay attention to guys like poor Eric Garner in the freakin' first place.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' "Progressive Populist" thinks that opposition to President Lemon's climate deal with China is ... treason.
Seriously. For real.
This is how the contemporary Left thinks -- not only that you're f***ing stupid (Gruber, Obama, most Democrats), but that opposing what they want is actually criminal.
It goes like this. Senate Republicans would bring a reconciliation bill to the Senate floor. They would offer a one-line amendment: “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed.” Democrats would raise a point of order against the amendment, most likely under the “Byrd rule.” There is some disagreement about whether the parliamentarian would uphold that point of order, but rather than get into the details, I will assume she does. The amendment would be dead unless Republicans could muster 60 votes to overrule the parliamentarian (technically, the presiding officer, Joe Biden), which they cannot do.
However: all Senate rules are adopted and can be amended by a simple 51-vote majority. Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his caucus reminded the nation of this fact when they “nuked” the filibuster for most judicial nominations.
Immediately after the parliamentarian rules the ObamaCare-repeal amendment out of order, therefore, Senate Republicans would give the required notice that they plan to change the Senate rules such that no budget-reconciliation point of order shall lie against any legislative provision repealing part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 . The next day, Senate Republicans would enact that rules change, and pass a bill repealing ObamaCare.
Just play the game they invented, is all.
Remember, he spoke ill of Muslims, taking on Ben Affleck in the process.
Like a good "progressive," ASUC Senator Marium Navid said “It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate.”
The WaPo asks: Could non-citizens decide the November election?
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.
But, as we all know from yammering "progressives," voter fraud is a "myth" and certain groups -- minorities and old people -- are just too damn dumb to get a photo ID.
What will be most interesting is how President Lemon reacts to having not just one legislative chamber in GOP hands, but both. All indications at this time point to a GOP takeover of the Senate.
As before, Boss Obama has promised to do what he can unilaterally; from what we’ve seen, many of those actions already implemented are of dubious legality.
Will Obama goad a GOP Senate into impeaching him? I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. But the GOP needs to be smart (unlike with Bill Clinton’s silly impeachment). They should let the president do as much extra-legal/constitutional stuff as possible … until outcry comes from other than the GOP and conservatives, however small.
The president, though incompetent, is not stupid. He knows any such movement or even talk about the “I” word will cause not only a political rift, but a racial one as well. His acolytes in the mainstream press will play up the race angle more than they already do routinely: “How will it look to world that we may impeach the first African-American president?” “How can the GOP hope to ever attract minorities after this?”
Probably the smartest strategy, though, no matter what Boss Obama does in the last two years of his term, is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Let Obama’s approval ratings continue to plummet right through 2016 so that a GOP president is virtually assured. He (or she) can then run on a “returning sanity and legality to the federal government” platform.
This is amazing. Two guys who were addicted to video poker found a bug that ensured they win every single time. They weren't cheating. They figured out a sequence of buttons that would allow them to win. The problem was in the code for the machine. Of course, they get greedy and get caught. The casinos call in the Feds who throw a pile of charges at them and none of them stick. Why? Because shitty code is not cheating. The Feds seize their money and the IRS comes after them for the taxes on the winnings the Feds took even after the case was dismissed. This is not government, this is gangsterism.
Back in May of 2010 -- May 5th, to be exact -- several (Caucasian) students at California's Live Oak High School wearing shirts with the American flag on them were asked to leave school because they refused to turn their shirts inside-out.
What, what? Students had to turn their shirts around ... because American flags were on them?
Yep -- it was Cinco de Mayo, after all.
School officials at the heavily Hispanic school were concerned that Latino students would be offended by seeing Old Glory on the Mexican holiday (a holiday not even widely celebrated in Mexico), and that some fights could result. Indeed, some 200 Mexican/Mexican-American students protested in a march that day upon hearing about their devious Old Glory-clad peers.
The gringos went to court ... and lost. The Ninth Circuit recently declined to hear their appeal, citing "prior events" that took place at the school, including an "altercation" (presumably between a white and Hispanic student), as a rationale. (There had been some 30 fights between white and Latino students in the past six years at the school.) The appellate panel said "school officials 'acted properly to prevent a substantial and material disruption of school activities.'”
The US Supreme Court indeed has granted a lot of leeway over the last few decades to public school officials when it comes to regulating student speech. One notable ruling from seven years ago is the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case (Morse v. Frederick) in which a (public school) student unfurled a banner with "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" on it across the street from his school during the Olympic torch relay.
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the case (emphasis added):
Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers . . . poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse. The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers.
Perhaps anticipating the ensuing controversy, those in the majority with Roberts emphasized that this ruling "applied only to advocacy of illegal drug use." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted the "Bong Hits" case "'provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue' ... including student opposition to the drug laws themselves" (emphasis added).
You probably should be. The courts have pretty much been all over the map when it comes to lower ed. student speech rights.
The standard for such rights had been the Tinker case from 1969. The SCOTUS ruled then that students were indeed permitted to wear black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam War. The famous quote to emerge from the case was "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."
But since then, Tinker has arguably been eroded, despite Justice Alito's reassurance in the Morse case. In addition to Morse, 1988's Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier allowed school administrators to censor student newspapers, even despite "protective" measures taken by student writers and editors.
Which brings us back to the situation at Live Oak High School. Does Morse apply here? Why or why not? Have we actually reached the point in this country where showing the American flag can legitimately be banned ... despite it being displayed in front of our schools ... and in each classroom within?
As an educator, I can fully appreciate the need for an "orderly educational environment," and back in 2007 during the Morse case I was fairly sympathetic to the high court's reasoning.
But these days, I'm not so sure.
If we're actually at the point where a display of our own flag can be considered "offensive" -- and hence banned -- then where does it end? Will administrators now ban student displays of other national flags because they may offend some students, i.e. native-born Americans? And/or because such displays, like at Live Oak HS, may lead to some student scuffles?
Or, are only certain (politically correct) groups permitted to be "offended?"
More importantly, will this case now go to the US Supreme Court ... and will the justices legitimize the heckler's veto that the case enshrines?
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
In this case, the brutal beating of a gay couple in Philly a few days ago ... doesn't "fit" any of the state's statutes, if you can believe that:
"The current law for ethnic intimidation, a/k/a a 'hate crime,' in the commonwealth states: 'In order for ethnic intimidation to be charged, the malicious intention toward the religion, ethnicity or race of the victim must be the motive for the commission of the underlying crime,'" Tasha Jamerson, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, told the Daily News' Helen Ubiñas. "So, no, we would not be able to charge with ethnic intimidation in this case."
The law was amended to include sexual orientation in 2002, but that was axed by the state Supreme Court on "procedural grounds" in 2008. Great.
So in what is obviously a hate crime, the couple is sh** out of luck. Figures. Obvious hate crimes don't get charged, highly questionable ones do. *Sigh*
Meanwhile, Philly.com inexplicably offers up a "heartfelt" story on ... one of the alleged attackers. WTF??
Lawyers for the several members of the group that allegedly attacked the gay couple say their clients "would be 'coming in to give their sides of the story.'"
Can't wait to hear those.
Boss Obama, on Constitution Day, refers to our basic rights as ... "privileges."
“Our Constitution reflects the values we cherish as a people and the ideals we strive for as a society,” Obama said in the release. “It secures the privileges we enjoy as citizens, but also demands participation, responsibility, and service to our country and to one another.”
Because "privileges" can be taken away. Rights can't. And remember -- this lemon was (supposedly) a constitutional law professor!
An article at Inside Higher Ed highlights (no, not in hot pink) a ... "controversy" at the University of Iowa: the opposing team's (football) locker room is painted pink.
Well, this is the Age of Political Correctness, especially on college campuses:
While it remains a beloved bit of visual smack-talk for many Hawkeye fans -- and was even featured in a recent ESPN ad about college traditions -- some students and faculty have decried the color scheme as sexist and discriminatory.
"There is no denying that [former Iowa football coach Hayden] Fry’s tactic is rooted in an antiquated age when homophobic and sexist epithets were the norm in sports," [protester Kembrew] McLeod said.
Since 2005 Jill Gaulding, a former University of Iowa law professor, has threatened to sue or file a federal complaint against the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law that forbids gender discrimination at colleges. On Thursday, Gaulding, who is now a lawyer with the nonprofit law firm Gender Justice, said the "discussions are still ongoing," and that the locker room's color is a type of gender slur.
"It sends the message that anything associated with female is lesser-than," Gaulding said. "The minute I read about the pink locker room and how the university had built it even pinker, it felt like somebody had just reached out and slapped me across the face. It was that insulting. People know what it means."
Erin Buzuvis, director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Studies at Western New England University (uh oh), agrees with Gaulding that the locker room is a Title IX violation, but says a lawsuit victory would be tough. Still, she notes (my emphasis)
"Title IX's application to athletics is aimed at equalizing the treatment of female athletes as well as their opportunities to play," Buzuvis said. "If you accept that using pink in the visitors' locker room operates a symbolic gesture of emasculation towards the team's opponents, the pink locker room certainly represents a form of unequal treatment, since the symbolism trades on pink's association with women and stereotypes about women's inferior athleticism."
But ... is that a stereotype? In general and taken as a whole, are not men ... superior athletes?
Before you go off with steam coming out of your ears, consider:
The mean difference has been about 10 percent between men and women for all (Olympic) events. The mean gap is 10.7 percent for running, 8.9 percent for swimming and 17.5 percent for jumping. (Source)
Men golfers hit the ball farther, in some cases a lot farther. Men tennis players hit the ball harder and faster. Baseball players throw faster and hit the ball farther than (women) softball players. Etcetera, etcetera. Why do we have separate sports leagues for the sexes, after all?
Men's sports are far more popular with spectators because the competition level is greater. The athletes are faster, stronger, and more durable. This is just a biological fact, despite U. of Iowa's student newspaper's complaint that the "sexist norm of male superiority" still exists, and despite those who believe gender is merely a "social construction."
By the way, there's actually some psychological research to back up what the Iowa football squad (and others) have done to opponents' locker rooms. One researcher says the color pink acts like "a tranquilizer that 'saps your energy.'" Pink is also used frequently in "drunk tanks" and jail cells. In addition, the notion that pink is a "girl's color" is actually relatively new; it didn't really begin to take hold until the 1940s.
In closing, I get that efforts to encourage male athletes (and coaches) to cease using terms like "sissy" and anti-gay expressions need to be established and enforced. But over-zealous complaints about things like using pink in locker rooms -- because it facetiously calls into question opposing players' toughness, and even their masculinity -- are just another example of institutions like a "Center for Gender & Sexuality Studies" finding "reasons" to justify their existence.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
Keli Goff, a columnist for The Root, a black-oriented news site, wrote earlier this week that “Before Putting Judges on the Bench, Make Them Prove They Have a Diverse Set of Friends.”
That's right -- what used to be a "progressive" snarky remark ("I bet you also have some black friends!") to someone defending themselves from (usually baseless) accusations of racism should now be used to determine judicial fitness.
“So instead of trying to decode what someone meant when she made a comment about a particular civil rights case, perhaps we should ask more pointed questions, like, ‘How many people of color do you know and know well; how do you know them; and, perhaps most important, are your opinions of them generally positive or negative?’”
Goff based her comments on a study which showed that judges with daughters tended to rule in a "feminist direction" (whatever that precisely means). But it doesn't say that these judges were asked about gender-related matters, let alone appointed based on their responses.
In news that should surprise no one outside of the Boss Obama True Believers, news today says that President Lemon broke the law with regards to the prisoner deal for the Army's Bowe Bergdahl:
Officials neglected to give Congress a 30-day notification and illegally switched money from one account to another to conduct the swap, the Government Accountability Office said.
Mr. Obama defended the exchange as legal use of his powers as commander in chief and said he had to withhold information from Congress to preserve secrecy in delicate negotiations with the Taliban.
The GAO said the Defense Department did not break any law when it determined these five Taliban were no longer threats to the U.S. Rather, the violations were Defense officials’ failure to tell Congress ahead of time about the transfer and the $988,400 expenditure to conduct the operation.
Rear Adm. John Kirby said the Boss Obama's lawyers and the Justice Dept. said the deal was "a lawful exercise of presidential powers delegated to him as commander in chief under Article 2 of the Constitution."
The Justice Department? Of course it did!
From Reason: Ferguson Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Was "Beaten Very Severely" Before Shooting.
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
Reason, which has been critical of the police response in the aftermath of Brown's death, wonders why authorities waited so long to reveal this information.
The only source we've seen with this new info -- up until today -- was Gateway Pundit, which, as Reason notes in their article, relies on a single source for this claim about Wilson.
As we noted here and here, Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted for "abuse of power" because -- wait for it! -- he had the audacity to demand the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg after her arrest for drunk driving. Check it:
In April 2013, Lehmberg was arrested after a witness called 911, describing her as driving erratically, swerving back and forth into the bike lane, and into oncoming traffic. Officers at the scene reportedly found an open bottle of vodka in her car, and a blood sample obtained later that evening purportedly showed a blood alcohol level of 0.239—almost three times the legal limit—even that many hours later.
If you already haven't seen it, be sure to view this video of Lehmberg's police booking.
But to the point regarding this insane lawsuit against Perry, here's Insty's Glenn Reynolds:
If the GOP doesn’t like it, it needs to ruin lives and careers just like the Democrats do. If it’s not willing to do that, then it can expect more of the same. The GOP would do better to respond like Dems, going after the attackers mercilessly and standing shoulder-to-shoulder regardless of the issue.
However, Professor Jacobson notes that the Dems may have overreached in this instance, as the indictment is "uniting unlikely allies" against Lehmberg and co.
One of these is Boss Obama strategist David Axelrod.
There's been another shooting of an unarmed black teenager, and what played out last summer is sort of repeating itself. To wit:
Today the name of the cop involved in the shooting was revealed: Darren Wilson. His race, at this point, still remains a mystery, however. Also revealed was the situation which led to the confrontation between Wilson and Brown: It seems Brown was a suspect in a robbery.
Here is the Missouri statute pertaining to the use of deadly force to effect a felony arrest. Based on the police's initial statements, these (at least one, certainly) appear to apply to this case.
To be sure, the Ferguson police didn't do themselves a lot of favors with the delay in issuing Wilson's name and the account of the incident (which, I understand, still isn't 100% complete). Nor was, as noted above, the overly "military" nature of the post-shooting response to protests.
But also not doing anyone favors are responses like that of WDEL's Al Mascitti who today went on a rant about "white people" (especially Tea Party types, of course) being the only ones who support police in this case, and even made a comparison of the "hopelessness" of black communities across the country to that of ... Palestinians in Gaza. (He even said that people "know" Hamas rockets launched into Israel "don't hurt anyone," but they provoke an unreasonable response.)
The details will keep coming out, and the inter-political philosophy squabble of various viewpoints about the incident will make for interesting discussion.
But there's certainly one thing you can count on: The mainstream media has its NarrativeTM, and it will stick to it ... no matter the facts.
UPDATE (by Hube): The latest reports indicate that Wilson was unaware of Brown's robbery activity when he stopped him. Brown and a friend were stopped for walking in the middle of the street and blocking traffic.
UPDATE 2 (by Hube): This site notes that, although Wilson stopped Brown and friend for walking in the street, once he saw cigars in Brown's hand he thought he might be the robbery suspect.
NRO's Jim Geraghty from his e-mailed Morning Jolt:
The unsecure border is an entirely theoretical problem for most of our political class. Lawmakers rarely if ever encounter illegal immigrants, much less dangerous ones, on Capitol Hill, or at their high-dollar fundraisers. Illegal immigrants don't climb over the fence of Camp David or the White House. The president isn't likely to run into many illegal immigrants in his upcoming two-week vacation at Martha's Vineyard.
Indeed. Just like Robert Redford's recent example of "doing as I say, not as I do" (cripes, how many examples of such "progressivity" do we need??), you don't see the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden (who yesterday said that the illegal children who have made it to the border and beyond are "our kids") lining up to open their spacious mansions for the very illegals whose "rights" they so vociferously defend ... do you?
This, and the predilection for the current administration to either thumb its nose at the law AND/OR sue anyone who gets in the way of what they want, is why I advocated what I did here: border state governors and other officials should do what they have to to secure and enforce the damn border. Let Boss Obama, Eric Holder or whomever else sue 'ya. And if you lose, just do what they've done: use agencies at your disposal to "do what you have to do." Y'know, like they did with the IRS. At least, in your case, you'll be adhering to and enforcing the law.
Yes, we've come to this point.
I love this hypothetical by Yuval Levin today over at The Corner. The premise is that we elect a GOP president in 2016, but the House and Senate remain as they are now, party-wise. The new president wants to cut income tax rates by ten percent. The House passes such a bill; the Senate blocks it.
And let’s imagine that the president then proceeds to announce that, given how helpful he believes his preferred course of action would be to the economy, he will just implement the rate cut himself: His administration will not enforce any legal penalties against people in the 35 percent bracket who only pay a 25 percent tax on their incomes, people in the 25 percent bracket who only pay 15 percent, and so on.
What, Levin, asks, would be the Democrat reaction to such a move? How could they, without making everyone laugh hysterically, make a case that the president was acting unlawfully ... given all the unilateral (legal) moves made by Boss Obama?
That'd be, in case you were unaware, Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee who the other day whined about the GOP supposedly seeking to impeach Boss Obama (something they're not doing), and as part of her "argument" claimed the Democrats never attempted to impeach President Bush.
Except that they did attempt to do just that. And Jackson-Lee was a co-sponsor of the legislation.
And Jesse Ventura won, getting $1.8 million
To be fair, Ventura actually sued the SEAL, Chris Kyle, but after Kye was killed the dick Jesse proceeded with his suit against the estate -- Kyle's wife being in charge of it.
It's bad enough (for the Boss Obama administration) that a recent court ruling said ObumbleCare subsidies are only available via states that have established health exchanges (as per the language in the actual law); it's worse that one of the law's architects said exactly that in the past.
Even though the administration, et. al. are arguing that the law "infers" that the federal government can offer subsidies.
Still worse are this architect's -- Jonathan Gruber -- pathetic excuses for his statements ... and the ObumbleCare law's actual language:
"It is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it's a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states."
Un-freakin'-real. The law has a TYPO, for cripe's sake. That NO ONE caught.
Then again, Nancy Pelosi did say that the bill had to be passed so that we could know what's in it, right?
"I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake," he (Gruber) said.
He continued: "There was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step" [of creating their own exchanges]. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo."
Got that? Even though this Obamanaut has more than once stated what the recent court ruling said -- that, again, only states with exchanges can offer healthcare subsidies -- he "misspoke" ... just like the "typo" in the healthcare law.
Anyone who still buys anything that comes out of this administration really is living in an alternate reality.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is sending 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. But the Boss Obama administration suddenly is worried about the law and procedure:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House has not yet received the formal communication required for Perry to deploy guard troops.
If I were Perry, I'd simply sit back and let out a huge guffaw at that.
Watch out!! Democrat Senator "I'm A" Dick Durbin is -- wait for it! -- fed up with critics of the Boss Obama administration regarding the situation on the southern border. Why? Because the problem was started by ... George W. Bush. In 2008. Six f***ing years ago.
"It was the Homeland Security Act signed by President George W. Bush which says we treat these children humanely,” Durbin said.
Of course, we could humanely send them back to their own country. Not to mention the Act in question was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Also not to mention, a thing called THE LAW has never stopped this administration from doing whatever the hell it's wanted in the past, but all of a sudden ... well, George W. Bush, dammit!
Via The Federalist, here are some of the dopiest emotion-over-fact "arguments" about the SCOTUS decision from the other day:
Can't believe we live in a world where we'd even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) June 30, 2014
Yep, because we all know the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby being allowed to set up a paramilitary group to make sure its employees do not visit local pharmacies for contraception.
Gotta make a list: Viagra? Okay. Vasectomies? Okay. Female birth control? Nope. What differentiates these, I wonder?— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) June 30, 2014
Are condoms covered by ObamaCare? Nope. And guess what? Vasectomies aren't either.
Senate ML Harry Reid on SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling: "It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."— Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) June 30, 2014
Sounds like an argument against Hillary for president. I don't want a woman deciding what happens to me, my dad, my brother-in-law, etc.
Welcome to the bedroom of your employees, Hobby Lobby.— Josh (@VagrantSays) June 30, 2014
Best response to this:
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!" "Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave." "The wallet stays, bigot."— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 30, 2014
More moonbat goodness at the link above.
The recent SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision really has caused many a "progressive" to get his/her panties in a real tight bunch. So much so in Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid's" case that, well, he's gonna tweet about the case ... and you're gonna accept what he says, dammit!!
Fair warning: anyone who makes a snide or sarcastic comment implying I've not read/don't understand the HL decision gets blocked.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 30, 2014
The Spider-Man writer offers up this gem today:
But here in America, the separation of Church and State is an important constitutional principle. And that goes for EVERY religion.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 2, 2014
So naturally that means the government should be able to force private employers to provide services which violate their religious beliefs.
The cognitive dissonance of the gnomish one is without limit.
Well, the Supreme Court is on the contemporary comicbook crews' collective moonbat minds after yesterday's rulings, in particular with regards to the Hobby Lobby case. And they ain't happy. First up, our good pal Dan Slott compares the high court's conservative bloc (and contemporary Christians) to ... 16th century Spanish conquistadors:
You know who imposed their religious beliefs on others? The Conquistadors. And you know what they were? Assholes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
I'd ask the gnomish one to explain how the SCOTUS (or modern Christians) "imposed" religious belief upon society (well, women, really in this case), but that would require an IQ over 90 and I don't think Dan qualifies. Not to mention, someone responded to Slott's tweet (supposedly humorously) "ask the Aztecs." Yes, indeed -- also ask what would have worse: The Spanish imposing Christianity upon the natives, or the Aztecs imposing their religion ... which routinely (and barbarically) included human sacrifice.
If Hobby Lobby were a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish owned company, we would not be having this discussion. Is that a fair assessment?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
Then, there's this retweet by the gnome:
A message to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby from WW pic.twitter.com/4kuW6jVZ57— Pia Guerra (@PiaGuerra) June 30, 2014
Classy, eh? All because Wonder Woman can't have her employer (who knew she worked at Hobby Lobby?) pay for certain forms of birth control. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Like this, too (retweeted by comics 'bat Gail Simone):
Indeed -- the company that pays your salary should just STFU and give you whatever benefits you desire. The hell with what their beliefs (or wants) are. They just give you a living, after all.
Along those same lines, here's Tom Brevoort, another political/legal mental midget, chiming in:
@DanSlott Yes, it's an absurd argument. You don't get to decide what taxes you get to pay. Corporations aren't people, aren't human.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) July 1, 2014
Earth to Tom: Certain contraceptive benefits paid for by your employer are NOT taxes. And corporations ARE people in many (most?) legal realms, including this one. The predilection among modern "progressives" to bring up this corporation stuff ignores over 200 years of legal precedent.
Lastly, here's 'ol Ron Marz who obviously didn't feel like putting as much "effort" into the whole pile-on as Slott, et. al. did:
Actually, if the US soccer team does as well as the SCOTUS did yesterday, we'll be moving on to the quarter finals, thank you very much.
Be sure to check out, too, Douglas Ernst's reaction to these geniuses.
UPDATE: Also check out Truthwillwin1's reaction to the tweets in question.
UPDATE 2: The gnomish one is having a fit because "right-wing bloggers" took him too "literally." Funny, if a "right-wing blogger" had used "Muslims" without the requisite "some" or "radical" inserted in there, guys like Slott would be screaming bloody "Islamophobia" on social media for days.
Want a $15/hr. "living" wage? Then be prepared to pay for it:
Got issues with the IRS? Give them the same excuses they're giving us. Douchebags.
LOL Alert: The LGOMB's "Trust Fund" Scott offered up an "update" to his possible challenge to Rep. John Carney. Judging by the number of comments, it seems there's just a bunch of eye rolling regarding this ... "challenge."
The SCOTUS has ruled that the Boss Obama administration's EPA lacks authority in some cases to bully companies regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Hey, it's a start.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has come up with the latest euphemism for "[illegal] immigrant" -- "New American." *Yawn* I like, too, how O'Malley, like other state and local execs, thumbed his nose at federal law to provide safe harbors for illegal immigrants. That is somehow OK, but when states/localities on the front lines in the border situation attempt to do the same but in reverse -- enact measures to stop illegals -- they're met with lawsuits from President Lemon. America: Gotta love it.
Like Obama, he has his grip on the pulse of America: John Kerry deals with yet another "crisis" facing the US -- he's "working hard to ensure that by the end of [his] tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors ..." I wonder how this ranks on the list of concerns facing the American public.
Lastly, who else caught that crushing last second goal by Portugal to tie the US soccer team 2-2 last night? If the US had held on, we'd already be on our way to the next round. But protective play and sloppiness at mid-field did us in. Speaking of the World Cup, FIFA, one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet, is pulling a John Kerry -- concentrating on ridiculous matters instead, in this case, of just having good natured fun. Sheesh.
Our DOJ chief did this at Morgan State University, an Historically Black College (HBC) in Baltimore whose enrollment is over 86% black. Yep, legal segregation has long since ended, but somehow, HBCs continue to exist, with percentages akin to the above.
And this -- when diversity is supposed to be the educational end-all to be-all. But where's the "diversity" at an institution like Morgan State where there is less than 2% white population, and the rest spread out among other groups? As Jeffrey Lord notes,
The school at which Holder spoke — had those percentages of race been reversed, with an 86.7 percent white majority and a 1.8 percent black minority — would soon have Eric Holder’s Justice Department swooping down on it to charge it with “disparate treatment.”
Indeed. First Lady Michelle Obama was in Kansas for the same reason Holder was in Baltimore, and lamented “Many young people in America ... are going to school with kids who look just like them.” Uh huh.
*Sigh* Just like "hate crimes" laws, "diversity" applies to only one group.
The US Supreme Court will meet in private to determine if they should hear arguments regarding the rights of comicbook legend Jack Kirby's heirs to certain Marvel Comics properties. Kirby, as you may well know, was the major creative force for Marvel in its formative years (early-mid 1960s). So far, Marvel has been successful in warding off the legal challenges.
There's an interesting comment in the above link's comment section which, if accurate, certainly bodes well for Kirby. At the very least, Marvel should of its own accord set up Jack's heirs for life, for the company would be nothing without him. Period. Kirby created or co-created Marvel's most popular characters. He wasn't merely an artist; he essentially plotted out entire stories with written notes in the margins of panels that he drew, and Stan Lee would later add the actual dialogue.
Ugh, where do we find these dolts?
A Florida school teacher humiliated a 12-year-old boy in front of an entire class after she caught him reading the Bible during free reading time.
The teacher, at Park Lakes Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale, ordered Giovanni Rubeo to pick up the telephone on her desk and call his parents.
As the other students watched, the teacher left a terse message on the family’s answering machine.
“I noticed that he has a book – a religious book – in the classroom,” she said on the recording. “He’s not permitted to read those books in my classroom.”
Um, actually, he is, Ms. Swornia Thomas (the name of the teacher). The boy was reading the Bible during a designated time set aside for reading. Not only is this Ms. Thomas woefully ignorant about religion in the public arena, so is the school's principal, Orinthia Dias, who wrote “You child is permitted to read the Bible before school, after school and during lunch, in accordance to the law.”
US Dept. of Education guidelines state
"...students students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities."
"Free reading" sure sounds like "non-instructional time" to me. And to other common sense thinkers. And the law.
It's bad enough that so many teachers and administrators have no clue about the law when it comes to religious expression in the public arena. Heck, public schools are legally permitted to have Bible Study clubs, as long as they meet after normal school hours. The Constitution "says" to schools, if they allow other (non-religious) groups to utilize their facilities, that they must also permit religious groups to do so if they request.
Additionally, as this Swornia Thomas is obviously a dope, her husband sure seems like a "winner," too:
CBS4′s Gaby Fleischman stopped by Mrs. Thomas’ home. Her husband told us she was not there and asked: “What the [expletive] do you want?”
Gaby responded that we want to speak to Mrs. Thomas’ to hear her side of the story.
“She ain’t got nothing to say to you, she ain’t got nothing to say,” responded her husband. “Get me on camera, get the [expletive] out of my yard.”
I wonder if that would be allowed in Swornia's class.
A bill unanimously passed the Cali State House that "encourages California schools to teach students about the racial significance of Barack Obama’s presidency." It also notes that Boss Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The original version indicated that he won the Prize, in part, merely because of his race. (Actually, the original wording seems to point out that the American people deserve the Nobel Prize for their "wisdom" in electing Obama.)
Since the bill uses the term "encourages," I don't see all that big a deal with it. However, I recommend checking this out, and then pondering if the current administration (and its acolytes) aren't following a more increasing "authoritarian patriotism" course ...
UPDATE: I should have been more clear: The ban applies to higher education based on a Michigan case.
Be ready for the "progressive" onslaught of how the high court is "turning back the clock on civil rights" and other such nonsense.
A panel on the execrable Al Sharpton's "Politics Nation" argued the usual swill about the GOP the other day, but this nugget upped the ante to the Nth degree: They (Republicans) want to make voting illegal.
RYAN GRIM, HUFFINGTON POST: I think it actually goes back to that old cynical bumper sticker that a lot of people have seen which says, it says something like, "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal." Well, voting can change things, and so they actually are trying to make it illegal.
You can give that insanity all the credence it deserves (aka zero), but more interesting regarding the voting issue is what I heard on the Dick Morris Show on Philly's WPHT 1210 yesterday while driving home. There's a movement out there which has garnered next to no mainstream media attention called the National Popular Vote. It's not what you may think at first glance; it's not a movement to abolish the Electoral College and elect the prez on a purely popular vote. What it is is a push to get states to agree to allocate all their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote -- not to the popular vote winner of an individual state. The mainstream media, natch, is more concerned about electoral college touch-ups such as this, where electoral votes would be cast on a proportional basis related to congressional districts. This, as the NY Times frets, has the potential to harm Democrats. Or so they argue.
But although the National Popular Vote website includes positive testimonials from Democrats and Republicans alike, what Morris pointed out on his radio show indicates a BIG worry for the GOP if NPV gets passed -- and NPV is very close to doing just that. Keep in mind, first, that no Constitutional Amendment would be necessary for the NPV to take effect as it does not constitutionally alter the nature of the Electoral College. But just as no amendment is necessary for the NPV, there is also no specific constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to vote. The 14th, 26th and 19th Amendments clearly mention citizenship and voting; however, there is actually no absolute constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to cast a vote. And, in fact, there is NO explicit right to vote for anybody enshrined in the US's founding document. Inherent right? Yes. Explicit? No.
And this is what Morris pounces on.
The Center for Immigration Studies offers up plenty of evidence on how individual states could allow non-citizens to vote. Most of the states that are "pro" non-citizen voting are blue states (surprise), and some of these states already allow non-citizen voting at the local level. Morris argues that if the National Popular Vote measure takes effect, blue states will be much more inclined to vote (via their respective state legislatures) to allow non-citizens to cast ballots beyond localities, i.e. for president. The reason for this is simple: Again, since the NPV would give all of a state's electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote (not an individual state's), and that non-citizens are much more likely to vote Democratic, it's all a pure numbers game. The GOP would never again see the White House, Morris argues.
While some scholars note that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment "clearly" grants states the right to impose a citizenship qualification (chee-yeah, tell that to Eric Holder), again, the numbers for the GOP just wouldn't cut it. Red state legislatures could impose such a requirement to vote, but it wouldn't be enough to overcome blue states that "opened up" voting to virtually every resident within their borders.
Naturally, one may wonder if blue states, even those dominated by Democrats in the governorship and state legislature (like my own Delaware), could get away with passing such voting allowances. They may be successful initially, but it's a good bet many independents and other moderates would subsequently object. The ensuing statewide races would have Democrats having to defend why they voted to allow non-citizens to vote. I think that would be quite a tough sell to anyone but a committed "progressive." In addition, even some advocates of non-citizen voting believe liberal states would be hesitant to allow what Morris fears:
To my knowledge no state has seriously considered extending the franchise to aliens during the past half century, and I very much doubt that any state would now make the move except at the insistence of the Supreme Court, says legal scholar Gerald Rosberg.
I tend to agree. However, this doesn't mean "progressives" won't be up to their usual electoral tricks while denigrating common sense measures like voter ID (supported by approximately three-quarters of the American public) as "voter suppression."
Our pal Ron "STFU" Marz believes the now-deflated "stand off" between the feds and a Nevada rancher is a simply understood matter: The rancher is a deadbeat who owes the feds around $1 million, and the whole dispute is a conservative "plot":
The abject stupidity at Bundy Ranch is the natural result of the delusions peddled by Fox News and conservative talk radio.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 12, 2014
Now, keep in mind, again, that this "stupidity" that is "manufactured" by Fox News and talk radio warrants the attention and denunciation of dedicated "progressives" like Marz -- who are sooooo concerned about the rule of law and the obedience of such:
@OGTslay1974 No liking particular regulations is not legal grounds to ignore them. He's a deadbeat simpleton.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 12, 2014
Which leads one to ask: Where the f*** was Marz during the innumerable times Boss Obama unilaterally altered the "established" law known as ObumbleCare? Answer: Completely silent. Because shut up, you simpletons deluded by Fox News and talk radio.
Indeed. Much like LIVs like the ignorant and woefully uninformed Ron Marz. Guys like President Lemon NEED folks like you, Ronnie. Keep truckin', brotha!
Here's ABC's report on the apparently resolved situation.
UPDATE: Uh, Ron, "uber-conservative?" Just because someone points out what an LIV moonbat you are doesn't make him the same on the other side. Wrong once again. It's an on-going trend with you. Not too many "uber-conservatives" I know have this or this up on their websites/blogs.
Well, maybe I should've used "correct." The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB): “Delaware Judge enshrines unequal outcomes for child rapists based on wealth” continues to be a national story.
It seems there was some pretty provocative happenings at this past week's Cape Henlopen (Sussex County, Delaware) school board meeting. Colossus has learned via an attendee of the meeting that it seems a couple of school board members cited Delaware Code Title 11 Section 1361 -- that related to obscenity -- regarding a teacher assigning the novel Brave New World to her high school class. That's right -- school board members insinuated that a teacher could be hauled out of his/her classroom in handcuffs, and arrested on obscenity charges ... for having his/her high school students read the eighty-plus year-old classic novel by Aldous Huxley.
The problem? GASP! There's an "orgy" scene in the book. Yep. But as anyone who has read the novel can attest, it's hardly written in language you'd encounter in a book today. It's full of figurative language, metaphors and other imagery. The book was written in 1931. School board member Jennifer Burton was the one who referenced the "relevant" Delaware Code in regards to the novel. A man who identified himself as a Delaware State Police officer spoke at the meeting and agreed with Burton's assessment of the novel with regards to Title 11 of the Delaware Code.
Part of the catalyst behind this whole affair is that it seems the same teacher who assigned BNW had also given a homework assignment involving the video for the hit song "Blurred Lines." When students Googled the vid to check it out, apparently they discovered there are several other versions of it that are very inappropriate. It seems the teacher was unaware of this. (Note: In my opinion, the teacher should have been.) What the assignment was and how it pertained to the class is still unclear. With regards to this whole matter, Cape school board member Sandi Minard went on Dan Gaffney's radio talk show to discuss it. This was a violation of the "current [Cape Henlopen] Contract, Board Policy and Delaware State Law," according to the Cape Henlopen Education Association. However, Ms. Minard remained undeterred, saying "I will not be intimidated nor will I be silenced." On the radio with Gaffney, Minard remarked that she (and parents) were (paraphrase) "prepared to move forward" past the issue, but then had heard about the assignment of Brave New World and ended up right back at "the beginning," so to speak.
Attempting to keep the issues separate, I ask: When hasn't a teacher been questioned about an assignment ... especially when the topic is something (even remotely) controversial? This happens all the time, especially in the humanities courses (English, social studies). Isn't the proper course of action, as the CHEA noted above, to follow procedure -- you know, like contact the teacher about any concerns first, and then [school-based] administrators if no satisfaction is given by the teacher? Dan Gaffney, on his blog, notes that Minard went public "after the complaints didn't seem to grab any traction with superiors within the school." But what does that mean, exactly? Does not "grab[bing] any traction" mean that the explanations given by the teacher and administrators weren't good enough for the [questioning] parents? What were the explanations by the school? Were there assurances by the school that steps would be taken to rectify lapses in judgment/procedure? We don't know.
But then ... how does all the above evolve into attempting to censor one the greatest classic novels of the last 200 years? Our source at the school board meeting said that school board member Burton remarked that dystopian novels should contain "positive" messages. Apparently irony escapes Ms. Burton ... in more ways than one. And if she (and her constituents) really want to see teachers taken away in handcuffs for having students read classic literature, then go for it. This may assuage a hard-right conservative base, but it'll scare the beejeebees out of many others, libertarians especially, left and right. And it will also assist in keeping the state GOP a statewide non-force for decades to come.
Here's the American Library Association's list of Banned and Challenged Books based on reports from the Office of Intellectual Freedom. Yep, some real head-scratchers on there for sure.
UPDATE: The class in question (reading Brave New World) is an 11th grade Advanced Placement class.
Also, as kavips notes in the comments, here's more from Delaware Beaches. Comment of the day by a father concerned about the book:
“Why would we teach kids what is negative in society?” he said. “Let’s teach them what is right, to become good citizens and improve the fabric of society.”
Irony really does escape a lot of people, doesn't it?
My blog "godfather," John Rosenberg of Discriminations, shows the zeal by which "progressives" detest religion and the free exercise thereof via the following exchange with our Chief Justice and US Solictor General Donald Verrilli during arguments in the "Hobby Lobby case":
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Now, does the government have a position on whether corporations have a race?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. We think those are correct and that this situation is different.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So that — so that a corporation does have a race for purposes of discrimination.
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, not that the corporation has a race, but that corporations can bring those claims. But you’re not interpreting — in that situation, all you’re interpreting is the word “person” in a statute, not exercise of religion, which is what makes it different here.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So those — those cases involve construction of the term “person”
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, but only “person.”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So the person — the corporation can bring as a person a claim of racial discrimination.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s correct, but not exercise of religion.
As Rosenberg says, "I would like to conclude with a zinger here ... but I can’t think of anything that tops this exchange standing alone." Indeed. For the current administration, a corporation is a "person" for racial discrimination purposes, but a corporation is not a "person" for religious discrimination (freedom) purposes.
That of hate crime.
The District Attorney's office will charge three teenage girls as adults in connection with several assaults on Temple students that took place Friday.
Najee Bilaal, 16, Zaria Estes, 15, and Kanesha Gainey, 15, have already been arraigned, D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson said. Estes and Bilaal are being held on a $100,000 bail, and Gainey's bail was set at $75,000.
Bilaal, Estes and Gainey have been charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.
But ... no hate crime. For the obvious reasons, natch.
Hot Air details the Catch-22 the diversophiles frequently find themselves in again. In this case, it's the Ferndale Public School District in Michigan where there's a contract which contains some usual affirmative action-associated mumbo jumbo, but also some legally curious and unintentionally funny words/clauses:
Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board’s decision shall be final.
First, why would women be granted "special consideration" for an education position? They make up approximately three quarters of all teaching positions and about 62% of administrators. But worse, how in the hell would the district determine an employee's religion? It's impermissible to inquire about such let alone promote somebody based on it.
Not too surprisingly, the local ACLU is incurious about all this.
... the Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Executive Branch enforces said laws?
Boss Obama is supposed to be a "constitutional lawyer." How does he not know this?
Hans Bader has the horrifying details:
How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims? As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I have no idea, but this radical result is what some want to happen in California. In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee, and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.” Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply an act that they did not consent to in advance. Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in.
The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not explicitly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.” But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex. The Fresno Bee praised the bill because ”it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.” The Daily Californian declared that ”the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction.” Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.
I've read through Hans' article and one thing sticks out (as it should for you, too): Even if there's a "verbal agreement" to engage in sexual activity on the part of a couple of people, how exactly would that prevent an assault and/or rape? Wouldn't it still be one person's word against another's?
"She said 'yes' out loud!"
"No I did not!"
Further, if a female gives affirmative consent before any activity is started, but in the middle of said activity changes her mind, would the guy have to stop? I mean, he was given consent, right?
This is just nuts. It reminds of a science fiction story, the name of which I cannot recall, where everyone had to have a lawyer at the side constantly -- even for usual everyday activities.
"No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living.” This sentence is from this article, uttered by the director of the Philly EEOC, about a Muslim man employed by the Philly School District who, in conjunction with the US Justice Dept., sued the district because it wanted him to trim his beard. Apparently, it is against Islam to cut a beard. (One may wonder, then, why so many Muslim males do not have beards. Must be infidels.) That's right, the same Justice Dept. who dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at a Philly polling place several years back is now suing because they're pro-beard.
Well, actually it's suing because of religious discrimination. Because, after all, No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living, right? I wonder, then, why didn't the Justic Dept. sue on behalf of the Christian couple who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple that was getting married? Was this couple "forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to earn a living?" If they can be so forced to go against their religion, why can't this Muslim gent?
We're not taking sides here; we're just pointing out the ridiculous (PC) inconsistencies and priorities of the current administration. I can see why the Muslim guy has a beef ("What does it really matter that my beard be a certain length to work in a school?"), and I can see why the bakery couple has a gripe, too.
MORRISTOWN, N.J. — A northern New Jersey honor student who says her parents kicked her out of the house when she turned 18 is now suing them, asking a court to make them support her and pay for her college.
A judge in Morristown has scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the lawsuit filed last week by Rachel Canning.
Court documents show frequent causes of parent-teenage tension — boyfriends and alcohol — taken to an extreme. In court filings, there are accusations and denials, but one thing is clear: the girl left home Oct. 30, two days before she turned 18 after a tumultuous stretch during which her parents separated and reconciled and the teen began getting into uncharacteristic trouble at school.
In court filings, Canning's parents, retired Lincoln Park police Chief Sean Canning and his wife Elizabeth, said their daughter voluntarily left home because she didn't want to abide by reasonable household rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew, doing a few chores and ending a relationship with a boyfriend her parents say is a bad influence. They say that shortly before she turned 18, she told her parents that she would be an adult and could do whatever she wanted.
Canning claims her parents "are abusive, contributed to an eating disorder she developed and pushed her to get a basketball scholarship." The parents deny all of that; indeed, they say they even paid for private schooling so that their daughter would get more playing time than she would have at a public school.
If this spoiled brat wins, kiss the country goodbye. Common sense and just regular, everyday sanity has departed. I mean, hell, even a divorced father gets to end child support payments when a kid turns 18.
God help us all, and especially this girl.
UPDATE: A judge ruled that the parents do not have to pay the brat's high school tuition and associated living costs; however, the judge delayed a ruling on whether they'll have to pay the [upcoming] college costs. The next hearing is April 22.
Just when you think life can't get any more insane, the most overturned Circuit Court in the country -- the 9th -- comes up with this ruling:
A California high school is allowed to bar students from wearing T-shirts with the American flag on them during a Cinco de Mayo event after a 2010 incident involving white and Mexican students, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.
The court found that administrators had reason to believe displaying the American flag would lead to violent confrontation, so it was justified in removing the students displaying it. Because only students wearing the American flag were threatened, students could still wear other national flags, such as Mexico’s, the court found.
The 1969 Tinker case ruled that schools can ban items or actions if they can “forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” However, Volokh notes that the 9th Circuit is likely to be overruled again by the SCOTUS as this decision essentially establishes a "heckler's veto" -- "in which speech can be limited to prevent violence from a group of individuals, rather than punish the individuals threatening the violence."
This is especially [worrisome] because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?
I was beginning to have some hope for the 9th Circuit as they recently made a favorable ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment. But this is just nuts. Displaying or wearing clothing with an American flag?? Schools pledge allegiance to it. But it can then be banned??
I've opined in the past very much in favor of Tinker and allowing school-based administrators to make common sense decisions. (See the various posts here.) There certainly is a fine line between keeping an orderly academic environment and protecting free expression rights, but I definitely think the school (and the court) are wrong on this one. Again, the school flies the American flag and pledges allegiance to it ... but it won't allow students to display or wear it?
AZ Governor Jan Brewer yesterday vetoed the controversial "religious freedom" bill which would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gay people.
Supporters said the measure would protect religious freedom. But opponents said it would allow business owners to discriminate against gays, lesbians and others.
Brewer said she was supporter of religious liberty, but she questioned the need for such a law and expressed concern that it could be misapplied.
She added that the bill "does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty," and that "the bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences." It is likely, however, that the bill was a response to a few instances in other states where gays sued businesses for refusing service to them based on religious objections. For instance, in New Mexico a photographer faced a lawsuit for refusing to snap pics of a gay wedding, and in Oregon a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding faced a complaint.
Debate has been all over the map about this. For example, students in schools do not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance if there's a religious objection. Would a gay owner of a business have to provide service to, say, members of the Westboro Baptist Church? What about Muslims or Orthodox Jews having to serve pork products? Why should it be illegal to refuse service to homosexuals on a religious basis, but unions are exempt from harassment laws?
California Democratic congressman Xavier Becerra said that the major f*** up that is ObumbleCare requires Boss Obama to take unilateral action to "fix it" because it is like -- wait for it! -- a national security emergency.
... his judges don't know what's in it:
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” wrote Allen in a tautological pronouncement that cited a unilateral assertion of sovereignty penned in response to 18th-century British abuses of power, rather than the supreme law governing the U.S.
The New York Times gave no indication it noticed Allen’s glaring error, dedicating most of its 761-word article to sniffing at opponents of same-sex marriage.
Yep, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen used the Declaration of Independence instead of the, y'know, Constitution. "All Men are Created Equal" comes from the Declaration. It'd be one thing watching Jay Leno asking people on the street this question; it's another for a federal judge to not know.
One phone call from new socialist NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio got a buddy out of potential jail time.
State-wise, Gov. Andrew Cuomo aide Jerome Hauer was caught illegally carrying a firearm ... and was retroactively issued a waiver after the revelation.
In "progressive" banana republics, this is how things work. No wonder de Blasio was a huge fan of Nicaragua's Sandinistas.
"It's the law." Yep, when the GOP was contemplating changes and/or outright repeal, this is what we heard. Yet, somehow, our president is permitted to change the law all by himself.
MOST RELATED: This administration has big cojones, I'll give 'em that. Today, Boss Obama's HHS is requiring employers to certify
... that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.
Penalty of perjury?? When this sour lemon keeps changing a LAW over and over again so that no one knows just WTF is going on??
Speaking of the NAACP, in North Carolina for a protest against voter ID measures, the group required participants to bring with them ... a photo ID:
Life imitates lunacy in "Progressiveville."
Even while acknowledging that the IDs are generally issued by states for free, Sharpton cited Attorney General Eric Holder and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis in complaining that simply having to travel to obtain the free ID amounts to a tax.
We've been through this sort of bullsh** before. WTF is next -- a stamp on an envelope to get a voter registration form is a "poll tax?" Why yes, as a matter of fact according to Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. Unfortunately for both Hastings and Sharpton, even the left-leaning PolitiFact (see last link) rates as "mostly false" that voter ID laws amount to a poll tax.
Elsewhere, race-obsessed Attorney General Eric Holder spoke out (again) against voter ID laws. “They’ve come up with a remedy in search of a problem,” Holder told MSNBC on Friday. “I think it is being used in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people ..." He also said that in a "vacuum" he would support such laws ... Cheeyeah, sort of like he would support school disciplinary measures "in a vacuum," eh? Puh-lease.
-- New York City's new [communist] mayor, Bill De Blasio, agrees with the recent "F*** you, Righties" sentiments of New York Governor Andy Cuomo. Is that surprising??
-- Did I mention Eric Holder already? Well, he is sticking by his "nation of cowards when it comes to race" comment from 2009. “Certain subjects are off-limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment, and at worst, the questioning of one’s character,” he said. He's certainly right about that -- but not in the way he thinks.
-- The MSM keeps George Zimmerman in the news, this time because George -- gasp!! -- did a painting based on an AP photograph. The photog is threatening to sue Zimmerman. This is big news, folks.
-- Lastly, io9 has a list of Marvel comics the company probably wish they'd never had published. Included are "winners" we've covered previously like U.S. 1 and NFL Superpro.
Via CBS News.com:
Does anyone actually believe this is just a coincidence? Anyone? I'm sure these are, too:
Dare I ask if all this occurred to "progressives"/"progressive" groups during a Republican administration?
UPDATE: Regarding D'Souza, anyone recall what the Boss Obama campaign did in 2008? Namely, accepting untraceable credit card donations where the donor's ID could not be determined, and choosing not to utilize basic Internet security measures to prevent "potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts"?
I do. I also recall no one being indicted or arrested for it, too.
Had to laugh at this Washington State legislative effort: Helping the NSA could become a crime in Washington state:
In response to national security leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the agency, two Washington state lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday aimed at denying any help to federal agencies engaging in warrantless electronic surveillance.
Called the “Creating the Fourth Amendment protection act,” the bill would make providing any type of assistance — including “material support,” state funds, and services — a misdemeanor for corporations or person acting as state contractors, and a gross misdemeanor for state employees.
Violating the act could land a state employee up to a year in county jail with a $5,000 fine. In addition, they would lose their job and be barred from public service.
State contractors caught violating the act could face up to 90 days in jail with a $1,000 fine and forever lose the state’s business.
What a riot. Washington's largest city, Seattle, is a "sanctuary city" -- it offers just what the term means to illegal immigrants. The entire state of bordering Oregon is a sanctuary to illegals. So, let's understand this: Washington will throw you in jail if you somehow assist the NSA in, say, tracking down some terrorist communications, but you're perfectly safe if you harbor those in the country illegally. Got it.
Yeah, I pretty much think it's nonsense, and the fight will continue as high as it'll go, but I was struck some months back listening to Dick Morris on Philly's WPHT radio when he had on an architect of the law. Morris -- rightly, in my opinion -- pushed the guy on the matter of how easily accessible the places one had to go to get an ID in the state truly were. In some instances, one would have to drive over an hour to get the necessary type of ID.
Why not just allow people to do what they do to get a passport -- mail in a certain size photo of themselves along with any necessary paperwork (which can be mailed to them). The person can mail all the stuff in, and in a week or so their legal photo ID is mailed out to them. Free of charge, natch. Would this not rectify the plaintiffs' beefs in the Keystone State? (Well, probably not ... they'll probably complain that the price of a freakin' stamp amounts to a "poll tax" or some other such BS, but legally it should hold up. Unless you're an idiot Eric Holder-type judge.)
Insty notes how Republicans should get behind silly federal mandates such as those like the 21 year-old drinking age:
Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, freedom and federalism, but it was under a Republican administration—and a Republican transportation secretary, Elizabeth Dole—that states were forced to raise their age limits or face financial penalties. That was before the tea party, though. Perhaps today, when Republican leaders across the board are singing the praises of limited government, it is time for them to put their money where their mouths are and support an end to the federal drinking-age mandate.
The "financial penalties" noted were basically denial of federal highway funds. The feds typically do stuff like this to force states to comply with their wishes. Look at education, for example, with No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Regarding the 21 year-old drinking age, frankly, it's stupid. I hear kids in school year after year (when they're doing the Constitution unit in History) say, "Hey, how is it that you only have to be 18 to vote and even die for your country in the military ... but you gotta wait three more years to buy a beer??
The Obama administration is seeking racial quotas in the nation's public schools. No, not quotas for some perceived racial balance just for a school's population, but for the number of students disciplined. In other words, if the discipline figures for a school don't more or less equal that of the school's [racial] population ... then it's racist.
It’s part of a larger effort — backed by teachers unions, civil rights advocacy groups and other organizations — to combat the “school-to-prison pipeline,” in which minority students are disproportionately kicked out of school and subsequently end up in the criminal justice system.
But within its guidance, most of which is not controversial and merely reinforces existing nondiscrimination laws, the administration also declares that schools’ disciplinary policies cannot have a “disparate impact” on one particular group.
In plain terms, it means district rules, guidelines and enforcement cannot result in the punishment of more black students than white students for the same offense, for example.
With that in mind, school leaders surely will keep a close eye on whether the same number of children from given racial groups are disciplined in equal number and equal measure for the same behavior.
“You have to make certain that your school discipline cases match those percentages. If you don’t, you’ll have the feds on your doorstep,” said Joshua Dunn, a political science professor at the University of Colorado and director of the university’s Center for Legal Studies. “If they actually do enforce these guidelines, there will be unintended consequences. This creates some rather destructive incentives. I don’t think there’s any way around that.”
The feds are pushing methods "for creating safe and positive school climates, which are essential for boosting student academic success and closing achievement gaps.” In other words, things the schools should be doing that parents used to. Yet another thing on teachers' and administrators' plates all the while politicians clamor for accountability on the academic front. At any rate, you now can't just kick a kid out of the classroom for being a constant disruption; you have to find out why the kid is doing what he's doing, and then take actions to help "remedy" it. You know, while your 30+ other kids are still sitting in class awaiting instruction. Take a look at the doublespeak and wishful thinking on the part of the feds:
"Maintaining safe and supportive school climates is absolutely critical, and we are concerned about the rising rates and disparities in discipline in our nation’s schools,” said Secretary Duncan. “By teaming up with stakeholders on this issue and through the work of our offices throughout the department, we hope to promote strategies that will engage students in learning and keep them safe.”
Requiring racial quotas in discipline will make schools and classrooms anything but safe and supportive. Why in the world does the government care more about the chronic problem students than the vast majority of students who wish to ... learn?
Hans Bader, a former attorney with the [federal] Education Dept., notes that ultimately, this sort of federal "oversight" could get it into trouble:
“The only practical way for a school system to comply with the Education Department’s demands is to adopt a de facto racial quota in discipline. But this itself puts the school system in legal jeopardy, since at least one federal appeals court has said that schools cannot use racial targets or quotas for school discipline, since that violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Bader added that in the case of People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, the court ruled that “a school cannot use race in student discipline to offset racial disparities not rooted in school officials’ racism (so-called “disparate impact”).”
Bader adds that, regarding People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education,
... it didn’t just strike down overt use of race to achieve a racial target or racial balancing. It voided even the requirement of racial balance, thus disposing of any potential argument by the Education Department that it’s OK to require racial targets or balancing, as long as the school is merely told to achieve the target, but not (explicitly) told to use race to achieve it.
So, maybe a school district that'd be willing to stand up to Eric Holder and Arne Duncan (good luck, though -- money, after all) can emphasize this case, among others. Others such as United States v. Armstrong (an 8-1 decision) which held that "crime rates are not the same for different races, and that racial disparities in crime rates and conviction rates are not proof of racial discrimination." Bader continues that not disciplining black students for misbehavior or some other violation just because some other black students were previously disciplined (more than white students) is "as crazy as ordering police to stop arresting black criminals just because they previously arrested more blacks than whites."
The feds state also that even if a school discipline policy "is neutral on its face," and "is administered in an evenhanded manner," if it has that disparate impact on students of a particular race, it's bad. Ironically however, policies like much maligned "zero tolerance" measures (those applied to whomever no matter what whenever the policy is violated) came about partly because school officials were fearful of "lawsuits charging that principals disciplined unequally based on race or other factors." Setting straight, specific guidelines enabled administrators to say "Look, you did this. This is the consequence. It's written right here." Schools set up their own codes of conduct which did the same thing. But then ... the racial numbers still weren't "balanced" after the implementation of these measures! B-b-b-b-but ...! (Also take a look at Kilroy's coverage of Delaware's Christina School District's intervention by the feds regarding disparate disciplinary measures. One of the points of contention was that, yes, the district was using terminology that was too subjective, thus making the point about the origin of zero tolerance policies. What a Catch-22. A school board member even noted that the district's definition of "inappropriate behavior" needed to be "thoroughly defined.")
Let's cut to the chase: As was alluded to above, if law enforcement was required to arrest people in proportion to their numbers in the general population, the result would be chaos. Crime would be beyond rampant and society would crumble. (UPDATE: Has this already begun?) Why should we expect schools, then, to follow such a ridiculous idea? Would you want your child to attend a school where the most chronically disruptive students weren't only not removed from your kid's class, but weren't even disciplined period?? What do you think that class would be like? What do you think that school would be like? It seems that when consultants, lawyers, advocates, and school officials ask why there may be disparate disciplinary rates among races in schools, the reasons bandied about rarely, if ever, include the obvious: that maybe, just maybe, students in certain [racial/ethnic] groups actually misbehave more often than others. And then consider this: should we do away with penalties things such as lateness to school and/or class? If there is a preponderance of students of a particular race coming late to class, how would that be evidence of teacher/administrator/institutional racism? Would clocks now be considered prejudiced? (Well, yes, actually. Because staff would be treated to something akin to this, where they'd be "educated" on how certain groups are different, and that "linear time is an inherently Caucasian-Western concept." And, hence is discriminatory. Or something.)
Ultimately, this is all the product of the current Democratic-led Education Department which, as Bader says, "outsource[s] civil-rights policy to left-wing radicals" and leads to guidelines and interpretations "which were probably drafted by left-wing civil-rights bureaucrats with little understanding of how classrooms operate in the real world."
A New Jersey cop accidentally stapled his ring finger, so "badly" that the "wound" was the size a pin prick, and now collects an over-$45K per year tax free disability pension. His lawyer told him he was "entitled" to it, and a judge agreed, saying "the state could not prove he stapled his hand on purpose."
In Fort Worth, TX, a teen was sentenced to ten years probation for killing four people while driving drunk. What did his lawyer argue? They said
his parents were responsible for the teen’s actions that night because of the way he had been raised. Defense attorneys put a psychologist on the stand who testified Couch was a product of wealth and got whatever he wanted. The psychologist also testified the teen was allowed to drink at a very young age and began driving at 13 years old. Defense attorneys argued Couch needed treatment, not jail ...
Amazingly, a judge agreed.
The co-CEO of Archie Comics' says she couldn’t have discriminated against her underlings - because they’re white men.
In papers filed in Westchester Supreme Court, Nancy Silberkleit's lawyer says a gender discrimination lawsuit filed against her earlier this year by a group of Archie Comics employees should be tossed in part because white guys aren’t members of “a protected class.”
The embattled co-CEO's filing also mocked the five employees’ claim that she’d used her “gender as a weapon” by yelling “Penis! Penis! Penis!” during a business meeting.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege that any such comments were directed at any of the plaintiffs in particular, or they could cause extreme emotional distress even if they had been,” her court filings say.
First, imagine if the gender roles were reversed. Second, this is a perfect microcosm of leftist thinking -- we're all members of a "group," not individuals, and some are more "protected" than others. Third, there's been (thus far) nary a word from the comicbook creators in Twitterville. Our 'ol pal Ron Marz, for example, is still obsessing over George Zimmerman.
Did the Washington Post interview Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who infamously said of Obamacare that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”? If there are officials in Washington, D.C. who seem to think their job is to pass laws for the sake of passing laws, they should be outed immediately.
The Congressional Research Service has admitted that there are so many federal regulations that it can’t even tally them up. Its best guess? “Tens of thousands.” And yet, in the minds of the officials who run to the Washington Post to complain about the 113th Congress, it isn’t enough. There are always more people to control, new activity to monitor and behavior to tax. It never ends.
Indeed. Hell, I'd give the 113th Congress kudos if they repealed some laws, beginning with ObumbleCare. And any one recall "Plugs" Biden saying how we need new gun laws ... because we can't even enforce the gun laws already on the books??
Anyone recall this local (Delaware) story about a family's ... "determination" to keep a basketball hoop up near their house despite it being in violation of state "Free Zone" law? Well, the whole dispute has been settled:
Many of the [McCafferty's] lawsuit’s counts were dismissed by Brady early on and the case had been narrowed to claims about retroactive and selective enforcement of the state’s “clear zone” law and if DelDOT employees had immunity from suit.
Brady found that DelDOT employees, who were doing their jobs, did have immunity and that warning letters sent by DelDOT months earlier satisfied the need for due process. The judge also ruled that the “clear zone” law is safety-related and that enforcement of safety laws cannot be challenged as improperly “retroactive.”
As for selective enforcement, Brady wrote that in order to prevail on that claim, the enforcement must “shock the conscience” of the court.
“Though the court would rather have seen this matter resolved differently, its conscience is not shocked. The intrusion was minimal (relative to the standards for ‘shocking the conscience’), and the mandate and purpose of the statute is clear and persuasive,” wrote Brady, adding that seven other similar basketball poles were removed that day.
Well there you go. Seven other b-ball poles removed the same day, yet the McCaffertys claimed "selective enforcement." Doesn't seem very "selective" to me.
The latest allegations from the American Humanist Association are shocking, titillating, and (cue the 1950s soap opera organist) downright scandalous.
In a complaint filed by the organization on November 20 a Missouri public school teacher has been accused of praying for an injured student, organizing a project to feed hungry children and (brace yourself) -- cavorting with a Methodist.
“Teachers simply cannot participate in prayers with students at school, nor can they promote their religious beliefs in any other way to their students,” the AHA said in a statement.
Actually, they can. Courts have ruled that if schools are open (after normal operating hours) to secular groups, so too must they be available to religious groups. The school in question here, Fayette High School in Missouri, has a group called Fellowship of Christian Students led by teacher Gwen Pope. The group meets before school and is purely voluntary. But, somehow, the AHA "said the two unnamed complainants had been subjected to 'unwelcome encounters with the classroom prayer sessions.'”
It seems her classroom is near the entrance door of the school and apparently non-believing students could see their classmates engaged in religious activities.
They alleged that Mrs. Pope and the students were seen reading Bible verses and (again, brace yourself) praying for the ill.
“When a student was sick or injured, Pope frequently asked the students in attendance to pray for the afflicted student and joined the attending students in prayer by bowing her head, closing her eyes and saying amen,” the lawsuit alleged.
GASP! Non-believing students could ... see in! Hey, here's a novel idea: Turn your (big-browed) heads. Close your eyes.
Just another day in Hurt Feelings America. Cripes, I'm surprised these cretinous humanists didn't also sue because the teacher's last name is "Pope."
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund highlights a story that supposedly has "chilling repercussions" on free speech. You be the judge:
Across the Atlantic Ocean in the United Kingdom, Darren Cullen is currently fighting for his freedom of speech while he struggles to get his new comic book, (Don’t) Join the Army to the printers. The comic is a satirical depiction of the British Military in the form of an “anti-recruitment leaflet.” Multiple printers have refused to print the comic due to the fact that they find it offensive. Despite the fact that this suppression of speech is not by a governmental agency, and therefore not under the protection of the First Amendment or Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it still has chilling repercussions.
Uh, what?? Let's see -- this dude Cullen wrote his own comic without any hassle from anyone, getting it fully funded via the popular Kickstarter site a couple months ago. Yet, because some private printing entities refused to publish it because they exercised their First Amendment/Article 10 rights, this somehow equates to Cullen "fighting for his freedom of speech."
As way too many a "progressive" fails to recognize, freedom of speech does NOT mean that other private individuals have to grant you a platform for your speech. Period. The article goes on to note that "Cullen was eventually able to find a printer that did not object to the content of the comic book ..." Well how 'bout that? Isn't that terrific? The very essence of freedom and democracy actually worked.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if someone wrote a pro-military comic and pacifist printing companies refused to publish it, guys like Cullen and column author Eric Margolis wouldn't be clamoring about "suppression of speech" then. They'd be championing the printers for their freedom of association rights. And they'd be right!
Don't believe me? Just check out how "progressives" treat conservatives' freedom of speech on just about any college campus. The rationalizations for their actual suppression of speech usually are comprised of "because it's 'hate speech," it's "intolerant," it's "racist," and/or it "doesn't add to the dialogue."
No thanks. We've already had one president caught banging the help.
I used to read and comment over at Kavips but she became increasingly partisan and willfully ignorant of simple economics so I had to leave.
Which means we'd have had Lum's Pond closed or White Clay Creek or whatever else we gave away to the Feds. I'm sure Kavips would be now breathlessly railing against the Republicans for disobeying the Dear Leader.
Either way, this shutdown theater is just a reminder of how petty the Feds can be and shows the value of Federalism. If they don't own it, they can't shut it down.
California's so-called Trust Act police "would be prohibited from helping deport some illegal immigrants." The problem? Welllllllll, like part of Arizona's past "controversial" law, it conflicts with federal law:
The California District Attorneys Association and the California Sheriffs' Association oppose the law, in part because it also conflicts with federal statutes.
"It makes no sense and is unconstitutional," said former ICE Director Julie Myers Wood. "The federal government has sole authority to enforce immigration law. In this instance California is telling the feds what you can and cannot do."
I like this line: "While supporters say the law is designed to protect otherwise innocent illegal immigrants charged with misdemeanor crimes ..." Just let that complete disaster of logic sink in for a moment.
Under federal code 8 1373(a), a state "may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status ... of any individual."
A dozen Cali cities boycotted Arizona over its law; now, they have no hassle challenging the feds themselves. Because f*** you.
I hope that hell-hole of a state falls into bankruptcy and complete and utter social chaos. It deserves nothing less.
Noel Karasanyi, owner of the New 3rd World bar in Philly, believes complaints against his establishment are -- wait!! -- racist:
"We think there's racism involved in this, because bars in the same neighborhood, they're not going after them," St. Hill said. "Who died and left Spruce Hill in charge of the entire United States?"
Karasanyi owns three total establishments. One was closed by the state Licenses & Inspections Bureau for lack of a valid food license. Another was closed up for failure to pay back taxes. And now New 3rd World was notified that if it doesn't update its food license, it'll have to cease operations as well. Court records show that Karasanyi "has been sued in Philadelphia civil court at least 24 times by loan companies, the school district, vendors and the city of Philadelphia."
In addition, "neighbors say that public urination, drug use, illegal dumping, loud noise and after-hours serving" are commonplace at New 3rd World.
Karasanyi thinks it's "unfair" that he's "targeted" because of failure to pay taxes. Maybe he try the "racism" excuse with state/federal officials and see how that goes. He also said he does't have a trash dumpster because he got "fed up." Further, he said his bar's after-hours serving was merely "an oversight."
But ... all this, to Karasanyi, is because of ... racism.
Liberals tell me that there is no voter fraud and that we don't need to check the voter roles. North Carolina has 583 Democrat Votes Over the Age of 112
Actually, it's worse than that:
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote of over 2,660 people over the age of 110. Someone contact the Guiness Book and warm up the Ford, the Fountain of Youth exists and its right here in lovely NC. It's no wonder people are moving here in droves--maybe the use of tobacco isn't such a bad thing after all? But, on a more serious note, with all of the irregularities going on all over the place, we can now begin to wonder about a few things.
Got that? Over twenty six hundred people are over the age of 110 in NC.
Via Twitchy, check out the ENTHUSIASM! The SHEER NUMBERS!! The DEMAND!!!
This lone attendee is so enthused, he's probably busy texting his dog:
And this, er, uh, duo "aren't backing down!"
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hype is so subdued due to sh** like this:
The White House has approved a deal that will exempt members of Congress and their staff from some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Politico reported late Thursday. Under the law, popularly referred to as Obamacare, lawmakers and their aides were required to source health insurance “created” by the law or offered through one of its exchanges, and without the subsidies they currently enjoy, the members of Congress would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year, the report said. However, the Office of Personnel Management now plans to rule that the government can continue to make a contribution to the health-care premiums of the lawmakers and their staff, it said, citing unnamed congressional sources and a White House official.
ObamaCare: For us peons only.
Steve Newton does yeoman's work showing how you now live in a surveillance state.
I saw one of these pernicious vehicles on Otts Chapel road not too long ago and I was more than a little curious. I meant to google for it later as I didn't know what they were. Now that I do, I'm even more creeped out. They assure us that we can trust them and the data is carefully controlled and used only for felony cases. This from the same people who kept an illegal database on gun owners for 7 years.
We have two responses to this: either we get this law repealed and have that equipment sold and the database wiped or we go full Alinsky and start tracking movements of both regular police cars and undercover. Better yet, follow them when they're off duty and record them speeding, running lights, no seatbelts, talking on the phone. You know, all the stuff they ticket you for.
If there was ever an issue that both left and right in this state should be in full agreement this is it. The fact that they are not tells me neither party should be taken seriously.
As you probably well know, I'm no fan of COD, but this is absolute bullsh**, man:
On March 9, 2010, the day she revealed her plan to run for the Senate in a press release, a tax lien was placed on a house purported to be hers and publicized. The problem was she no longer owned the house. The IRS eventually blamed the lien on a computer glitch and withdrew it.
Now Mr. Martel, a criminal investigator for the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration, was telling her that an official in Delaware state government had improperly accessed her records on that very same day.
Beyond that, Ms. O’Donnell and Senate investigators who have tried to help her have run into a wall of silence, leaving more questions than answers about whether abuses of the IRS system extend to private individuals and not just the tax-exempt groups already identified as victims.
Cripes. I remember that lien story and many [local] bloggers and commenters made issue of it. I can't recall if I did, but if so I and everyone else should have blamed the freakin' Boss Obama IRS. COD's vociferous objections to this story were spot-on.
I still think O'Donnell is a deeply flawed candidate with many other problems; however, this IRS abuse garbage is incredibly frightening. Everyone should be worried about it for, once the GOP regains the White House, would you want to face "payback?" Be honest.
UPDATE: Rep. Darrell Issa Has Information That Will Link IRS Scandal Up Into the White House.
UPDATE 2: Go figure -- Delaware's largest news source has zippo on this story.
UPDATE 3: Commenter "anon" wrote in the comments:
The Tax Lien on O'Donnell dated back to 2006, you can pull up the documents and verify that fact. The Lien was never on her house, she posted a transcript of a conversation she had with the IRS in March of 2010 and the agent on the phone repeatedly tells her the lien wasn't on the house. The Lien was never called a "glitch" or a "mistake" by anyone but O'Donnell, again, the letters between her and the IRS prove that, and the Lien was never "withdrawn" she was claiming deductions with no documentations, and she did, in fact, end up paying the IRS some amount that was never disclosed.
Wow. Interesting information that is at odds with the article. Much more information regarding this is available here.
UPDATE 4: The News Journal covers the story today.
Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.
But check it: Scott is a (self-identified*) black man. [Christopher] Cervini was (self-identified*) white.
Be sure to read through the entire [four year-old] article. It sounds amazingly like the whole Zimmerman-Martin affair. It didn't get any national coverage 1) because it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM, and 2) won't get coverage now for the same reason -- namely that, in Zimmerman's case, if he was black, he'd have been found guilty.
The 'net, newspapers and magazines are now awash with "progressives" making crazy statements like "Young black men cannot walk the streets anymore" due to the [self-described Hispanic*] George Zimmerman verdict. We've already seen what several contemporary comics creators ("progressives" all) think; predictable libs are following suit. Some Facebook friends have even posted stuff like "Don't let your kids grow up to be brown boys ... keep them inside if you do." It's certainly predictable, whether the writer identifies himself* as African-American or white; however, especially with the latter, much of the heated post-verdict rhetoric is about ... "maintaining their liberal cred" ... letting their ["progressive"] peers know they're "hip to the theme" for lack of a better saying.
Just consider the sheer stupidity of statements like "Keep your [black] boys inside" -- because the law in Florida allowed a self-identified* Hispanic to protect himself in a scuffle against a black teenager, whom he ultimately ended up killing. The sad fact of the matter (sad for "progressives," that is) aside for the tragic death of a young boy, is that this instance is actually a rarity in contemporary society. For decades now, young black men have had lots more to fear from "going outside" and "walking down the street" ... from other black men. Fact. And, sadly, some "progressives" even play down this fact in an effort to further the silly NarrativeTM that America hasn't changed one iota in terms of racial progress since the Civil War.
For "progressive" self-identified* whites, they retain their "progressive" credentials by focusing on the modern -- and rare -- instances like the Zimmerman/Martin matter and claiming that racial progress is really a façade. They ignore the wildly disproportionate crime statistics among black men, again most of which are focused within their own community. (There were 2,447 murders of blacks by other blacks in 2011, which is almost the same figure as white-on-white murders; however, the former group is just one-sixth the size of the latter.) Why do they do this? If they are so concerned about the value of young black lives in America, why is this fact so anathema to them?
As Patrick Brennan writes,
And that’s exactly what many are saying about the Trayvon Martin trial — that racially motivated murders in America aren’t common, but murders of black men are. But those ("progressives") highlighting Martin’s death and downplaying the phenomenon of black-on-black crime would like you to think the former is a common-enough but neglected type of event that Zimmerman had to be charged, despite the weak case against him.
It's all mind-boggling, really, to a clear-thinking person. But, again, it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM. To modern self-identified* white "progressives," it's unfair to bring up the vast amount of black-on-black crime ... because African-Americans cannot be held accountable for it. The inherent racist political, cultural and legal system here in American has, and continues, to keep black Americans down. That, and there must be a lot of unspoken and purposely ignored guilt among these self-identified* whites, since it is their social programs which have been largely responsible for the disintegration of the black family.
One last thing for any potential "progressives" who may be obliged to comment: As noted yesterday, just because someone may agree with the verdict doesn't necessarily mean he/she thinks Zimmerman is a great guy and/or are "pro" Zimmerman. Nor does agreement with the verdict indicate a belief that there is no more (white) racism, or that there are no further social and legal injustices that need to be rectified in our country. Calling such folks "racists," "white hegemonists," or any other such nonsense certainly isn't going to help/solve anything.
Jim Geraghty, who identifies himself as Caucasian*, in his e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
But even if we look at everything that was said and presented in this trial, and like the jury, we conclude Zimmerman did not commit second-degree murder, and in fact acted in self-defense . . . that doesn't mean we have to lionize him. Being anti-racial-demagoguery doesn't necessarily mean we have to be pro-Zimmerman.
Geraghty also notes that "some jurisdictions" have "different types of self-defense" one of which is called involuntary manslaughter. Apparently this isn't part of Florida's jurisdiction, which answers my question why Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted/convicted of such.
And if you differ with them, well, you know by now.
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Is anybody feeling good about that verdict in Florida? Anybody at all?— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) July 14, 2013
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Zimmerman WALKS? Another big day for racism in this country! Christ.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
If nothing else, I hope people are forcefully reminded that this nation must grapple with its utter dysfunction over racism and guns.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 14, 2013
It breaks the heart, dissolves faith in the intellect and character of your fellow man, and saps your remaining hope in this entire mess.— Rick Remender (@Remender) July 14, 2013
... post Zimmerman verdict post. And that would be not much. Even many "progressives" believed the state overreacted and the murder 2 prosecution was nuts. The usual suspects are screaming about "how nothing has changed" in American society, etc. and this is all nuts, too. Regardless of what you think about the whole thing, face it -- the mainstream media is the biggest a**hole in this whole deal. It created a complete monster and NarrativeTM that once again divided us all and will now lead to further violence.
@instapundit So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.— Robert Wargas (@RobertWargas) July 14, 2013
If the GOP were, in any way smart, they'd start tacking riders on to these Obamacare bill that would do all sorts of things they can't otherwise pass. Defund the EPA, IRS, Dept. of Education. Fortunately for the Democrats, they aren't very bright.
The US Supreme Court has just struck down a section of the
40 50 year-old Voting Rights Act, and as could be predicted, the usual suspects are being irrational. Like MSNBC's Melissa Harry-Perry:
Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.— Melissa Harris-Perry (@MHarrisPerry) June 25, 2013
And the same network's Chris Hayes:
I am slightly surprised by how physically enraged I find myself.— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 25, 2013
Thankfully, there's Breitbart's Ben Shapiro for some rational common sense:
Voter turnout gap between whites and blacks in AL in 1965 was almost 50 percent. 2004: 0.9 percent. Leftists: But nothing has changed!— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 25, 2013
UPDATE: Hey look! It's Ron Marz again, offering still more evidence of his prodigious intellect!
Just don't ask Ron how today's SCOTUS decision would do just that. He'll ignore you. Because, to coin a cliché, ignorance is bliss. Meanwhile, enjoy a non-emotional, 21st century rational examination of today's high court decision.
UPDATE 2: The Corner has compiled a Top Ten list of the best ["progressive"] overreactions to today's SCOTUS Voting Rights Act decision.
From our Wilmington News Journal: Eight-month erection leads to malpractice lawsuit by truck driver.
Administration defends collecting phone records: "The order requires Verizon, one of the nation's largest telecommunications companies, on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries."
If you think Verizon is the only company that was forced to comply you're dreaming. They're probably pissed they're going to take the stock and PR hit while everyone else just keeps mum. This is absolutely Orwellian. "Oh they're not recording the contents of the calls, just the metadata." Really? That's what you're going with? So would it also be OK if I just made random checkpoints miles from the border and had it staffed by border agents who stopped EVERY driver for questioning or if I could seize your private property and give it to someone else because I felt like it? What if the ATF decided it should shore up the reason for its own existence by letting drug cartels buy weapons? Or if the government started targeting political enemies by punishing them with regulation, paperwork and endless, over reaching requests? It would be like living in a totalitarian society. Thanks to our Dear Leader for keeping us safe and uh..free.
Via Ace: We've already seen the lengths to which this clownish administration will go to snoop on people; now a US attorney suggests that anti-Muslim comments on social media might be a federal crime:
[US attorney Bill] Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”
Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.
“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
Except that, aside from incredibly bad taste (which isn't a crime), what [Muslim] civil rights were violated in that case? Is this yet another instance of Boss Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform" America -- here being an example of how the First Amendment will be curtailed further by an expansion of "hate speech" statutes? Hell, we've already seen what happened to that sap who made the YouTube vid which Boss O., Hillary, Susan Rice and others blamed for Benghazi: He was arrested ... and is still in the clink.
What's the one question that can derail any Democrat running for office:
The answer is ALWAYS bigger government and MORE taxes. Nothing but nothing is ever left to the people or the market. It's all about control folks.
Adana El Nusra operation: 2 pounds sarin gas found: "Adana Security Directorate, which began after the massacre of Reyhanlı connected with the organization Al-Qaeda and the accused is detained in an operation against Al Nusra Front and addresses of two kilograms were seized in the sarin gas."
OK so Al-Qaeda linked groups are now taking WMDs out of Syria. They keep crossing that red line and nothing changes.
I just had to laugh softly and shake my head at this story today at Philly.com. A dad is suing the "coach, athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board" of Sterling Regional High School in Camden County. Why? His son was booted from the track team. Dad thinks his son is a total track stud and as such should be able to run whatever the hell he wants.
I just loooooove that. A perfect example of WTF is wrong with our modern culture.
Let's take a gander at some of dad's moronic statements:
Uh, no they don't. That's why they're children. They can't vote, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive, etc. This isn't to say they have no rights, just not "like any adult."
Uh, no it's not unfair, especially in the sport of track and field. As noted in the article, track coaches always have to balance the needs of individuals on the squad with that of the entire team. After all, the ultimate goal is for the team to win.
A total crock. Participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, nothing more. If one does not want to do as the coach asks, then that person should either not try out or, if already on the team, quit/resign.
Hilarious. I wonder if the coach (and/or school, et. al.) have thought about counter-suing daddy on the same grounds.
Translation: Coach didn't do precisely what I wanted, so now I'm gonna act all pouty.
This may be the "best," however: Dad also says that his son was "'undefeated champ' in the 200-, 400-, and 800-meter runs as an eighth grader at a Catholic school in 2010." Which, for dad, "should have translated into a key spot on the team when, as a ninth grader." Whaaaa ...? As a runner myself, I was undefeated in the 400 and 800 while in middle school, much like this kid. Did I -- and my dad -- demand that, upon entering high school, I get a "key spot" on the track team? Hell no. And when track season (in the spring) arrived, it was soon apparent that there were many on the squad -- sophomores, but especially juniors and seniors -- who were better than me. And that's a key aspect not mentioned in this article; what were Mawusimensah's times compared to those of his teammates? Was he better in the 200, 400, and 800 meters than all, most, or even some of his peers? The article states the son wasn't permitted to run "even though he may have been faster than some seniors who raced." What does that mean? Was he or wasn't he? And if he was, does anyone buy that this track coach would not enter him to run in those events during meets?
Being a long-time educator and coach, my [educated] guess is this: Dad constantly complained to coach (and others) about what he perceived as "slights" to his son because of not getting what he wanted based on his [now-irrelevant] performance in middle school. When dad didn't get "satisfaction," he told his son (or implied it) to bag a few practices to "show the coach." (After all, the official reason Mawusimensah was booted from the team was unexcused absences. Dad claims there was a family death and an injury to his son. If so, where were the notes to that effect?) These absences then became the official means (or, if you prefer, "excuse") by which to dismiss Mawusimensah.
I also wonder why the Philly Inquirer ran a story like this. Well, not really. After all, as easily predicted, it is guaranteed to elicit a ton of comments, the vast majority of which side with the school and coach. (In fact, I haven't yet seen one siding with the dad and his son.) From a purely business POV this makes sense for the paper. But, I can't help but wonder if the paper ran with it out of a degree of sympathy for this family's "plight." Admittedly, there's really nothing in the narrative to indicate such (at least to me), but what is the reason for granting this dad the exposure?
UPDATE: Yesterday Philly.com switched article pictures to a more "plaintiff-friendly" one. The new one remains on the site's main page today; however, the actual article page has put back the original. Also (telling), the site has discontinued comments for the story. No surprise there for, as noted above, the comments were incredibly one-sided against the father and son.
Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker inadvertently understated a portion of her income by at least $80 million in a disclosure form required for her nomination to be U.S. Commerce secretary and has amended the document. Forms released online last night by the Office of Government Ethics show that Pritzker earned additional income for consulting work on hundreds of trusts, including family trusts, beyond what she disclosed last week. The omission, discovered by Pritzker’s financial advisers, was due to a clerical error, said Susan Anderson, the nominee’s spokeswoman.
If confirmed to run the Commerce Department, Pritzker Realty Group LLC Chairman Penny Pritzker would be among the wealthiest cabinet secretaries in U.S. history.
“It is a substantial amount and we moved to correct the mistake as soon as it was discovered,” Anderson said in an e-mailed statement. Documents released last week show Pritzker received $32.2 million for a decade’s worth of consulting on the restructuring of domestic trusts. The filings released yesterday show she earned at least $80 million for that work, according to Bloomberg’s compilation of the data. The revised total is in addition to the amount reported last week, according to Anderson.
Yeah, I remember the time that I forgot all about that $80 Million dollars I made.
Seriously, either she lied or she makes so much money that she just forgot about $80 million of it. What happened to the idea that we don't need millionaires and billionaires controlling our country. Guess that only applies to Mitt.
Alan Dershowitz: "The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."
Either this was some quick thinking by the committee member or they figured it out before she testified. It's probably the former b/c they adjourned before he made the point of order.
Also, there's this, "Did Trey Gowdy spring a trap?"
Valerie Jarret : "After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”
Then there's this:
Notice the parsing. He narrowed it from "anyone in the Whitehouse" to "I" and from "the IRS actions" to "the IG report before it was leaked". That was as big a sidestep as I've seen. Frankly it's an insult to the Clintons who are much more deft at these things.
The cover up is very real. When asked in 2010 for Tea Party related documents and emails as part of an FOIA request they lied and said there were none.
Sure, they're going to try and chalk it up to incompetence but that doesn't help either. They have two of three narratives to go with:
1. It wasn't intentional it was just incompetence
2. It was intentional and we're sorry about that
3. Obama didn't know.
Rest assured #3 is going to be the drumbeat. The GOP and moreover, the Tea Party has them either way. Either they're incompetent and should be downsized/eliminated or everyone gets fired. Or, it was on purpose and you're all going to jail.
I have little faith the GOP won't either screw this up or just take the political points in the press and leave well enough alone. If Rand Paul were smart and capable enough he'd use this as a chance to gut the power of the IRS and move toward a flat tax with transparent enforcement. I doubt that will happen. Both sides of the aisle like using the tax code to reward and punish as they need to.
I think Obama is just happy the IRS thing has pushed Benghazi off the front page because that's where the heat is. The only reason I can think of the IRS thing getting put forward was to get away from Benghazi.
So BitCoin appears to be holding its value (~$111 at this posting) even in light of the DHS seizing Mt. Gox's Dwolla account. The fact that DHS is interested and now actively making moves against BitCoin and Mt. Gox tells me it may be over as an exchange mechanism domestically. The problem with bitcoin is that eventually people want to turn it into physical dollars. If people start going bitcoin to bitcoin exchanges via Square or something similar it will be interesting. I fear that if more and more governments start preventing the exchange of bitcoins into fiat money it will kill bitcoins. The end run would be a company that exchanges bitcoins for precious metals but then they must figure out a way to get even larger amounts of bitcoins into dollars or otherwise barter them for services etc.
I'm hopeful but I would not be putting too much money in bitcoins now and mining is effectively the provenance of very large pools of miners.
The only sure thing is that many successors will follow and hopefully learn from Bitcoin and somehow not fall into the same traps.
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
Hispanic janitors have filed suit -- claiming discrimination -- because they don't speak the primary lingo of the country:
[Bertha] Ribota said she was injured at work because she couldn’t read a warning sign that was in English.
“If I could speak English I wouldn’t have the problems that exist,” said Ribota.
So, the remedy isn't to freakin' learn the language of your current home; no, it's to SUE to make others cater to YOU.
Unfortunately, based on past law, the campus is likely to lose since that's the way we roll in the Age of Obama. (But to be fair, this sort of legal nonsense existed before him ... it's just has his executive blessing now).
How do I know? Because the man who's 100% wrong on everything just said the opposite:
Dick Morris: "This attempt is, of course, doomed to fail. Once we learn — as we have already — that the intelligence reports were doctored, and that the military actions were aborted, it is only a matter of time until the blame filters up to Obama and Clinton, ruining one presidency and possibly preventing another."
Crap! If they both skate on this one we are truly a banana republic and we ain't coming back.
California approves medical marijuana and Colorado ups the ante with recreational weed. Kansas is pushing back on guns. Their claim is that any gun produced within the state that does not leave the state is not subject to Federal purview. IANAL but this one seems legally sound but it is in contravention of Gonzales v. Raich in which Justice Thomas in the dissenting opinion notes that
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
The thing about this is the Feds have a tremendous amount of power but even that is finite. If they push the issue they cannot win against the states. California alone is large enough to tell the Feds to pound sand.
Interesting times ahead.
"Over-commercialisation and its resulting restrictions and limitations can be very damaging and distorting to the inherent nature of the individual."
During her trial, Hill claimed she is still forced to live under the pernicious economic hierarchy imposed by the slave trade.
She told the court: "I am a child of former slaves who had a system imposed on them. I had an economic system imposed on me."
Hmm. I suppose anyone born after the ratification of the Constitution could claim they had an economic system "imposed" on them, couldn't they? I wouldn't try it in tax court, though. And, of course, I am wondering how it is "pernicious" that our economic system made Hill ... a millionaire?
Scroll down if you will to the picture with the chair. See that hole? Can we have a little better fire discipline? How is this whole escapade going away with not even liberals squawking about it? They put an entire city under martial law because two guys were on the loose. They imprisoned people in their homes, then raided those same homes at gunpoint and threw people out of their houses and nobody makes a peep. They put that raid together awfully quickly. How did they coordinate so many assets so quickly. They must have previously trained for this. I know I sound like I'm veering close to tin foil hat territory but this has me concerned.
So say some folks in this Philly.com article. Ironically, the two major political parties have sort of "switched" when it comes to this issue -- at least socially/culturally. The GOP has always been the one spearheading the privatization efforts in the state, whereas the Democrats have traditionally shot the idea down. Those against privatization list a litany of social ills that will befall the state should liquor stores become private -- more underage drinking, child abuse, higher divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc.
Here's what I say: *YAWN* Grow up, people. Pennsylvania is only one of TWO states in the whole freakin' Union to so regulate the sale of alcohol. The other is ... Utah. That's right, Mormon-dominated Utah. Pennsylvania wants to be like that state. Or, so it has for decades now. And make no mistake -- Democrats do not oppose privatization because of all the supposed social ills that will overwhelm the state; they oppose it because they're in the pocket of the powerful union that has run state stores for like ever. And the GOP, which typically supposedly cares about such social ills, is too focused on the economics and free market aspect of privatization.
A few days ago, the Philly Inquirer -- surprise! -- featured an article highlighting why privatization is bad. Who'da thought, right? Unions, Democrats ... which side you think the Inky will come down on, eh? At any rate, said article points to a 2011 study by a group called the Community Preventive Services Task Force which concluded "privatization results in increased per-capita alcohol consumption." Yet, somehow, 48 other states have all said "no way" to state control. Why is that? Maybe it's because, as the article thankfully points out, what Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, says:
... the evidence is not strong enough to support the task force's conclusion. Pennsylvania, for example, has a high rate of binge drinking relative to other states.
Davies compared states that have government sales against those with privatized systems and found that state control does not correlate with lower rates of alcohol-related problems.
"The question we really want to ask is, 'Does state control lead to better outcomes?' " Davies said. "That research shows no significant relationship."
So, hopefully we'll soon say "Welcome to the 21st century, Pennsylvania" quite soon.
Recently I found myself involved with the Justice system here in Delaware. No, I'm not in trouble. Without going into specifics someone in my family was listed as a victim on a police report. Naturally, I wanted to read the report only to be told I was not allowed to. Why? The report was filed on behalf of "society" not my family member. That means no one is allowed to read it. That can't be right, thought I and I retained an attorney. The attorney was also notified that they weren't allowed to see it either. I asked "who is society" to the officer who filed the report. "Everyone" said he. "Well, aren't I part of 'everyone'?" I asked. "It doesn't work that way" he said. I found this to be rather disturbing. I didn't think I lived in a place where there are secret police reports that have no concerns on national security or even the pretense of any form of state secret and no one is allowed to see it.
How many such complaints are filed per year? I have no idea. How are these ajudicated? Can I be present during the hearing? How do I know when it will go to trial? Do I just attend daily and hope to get lucky?
the assailant screamed “Allah-u-Akbar” — or “God is great” — during the attack.
Cannot imagine what the motive could possibly be. Any guesses? Anyone?
Thursday, legislation here in Delaware made it through the state senate which will expand background checks for gun purchases. I cannot find anything that objectionable about its provisions; there are exemptions if the transactions "are between immediate family members, law enforcement officers, or if they involve antique firearms or the return of a gun by a pawnbroker." What's more worrisome is coming proposed legislation by DE Attorney General Beau "I've Tried Tens of Cases" Biden that will expand the definition of who is mentally ill:
“But the other piece that we’re going to be introducing next week is another part of our package. And that is expanding and broadening the category of folks who have a mental health issue that we believe should prohibit them from possessing a firearm,” he added.
The mental health definition has been fuzzy in gun bills introduced on the federal level, but usually has boiled down to whether a person is adjudicated mentally ill. Much of the debate on the Hill has been about whether a doctor can violate patient confidentiality in reporting a person to be listed in the gun-check database, and whether that would discourage those afflicted by mental illness from seeking treatment.
Biden called adjudication “a very high standard, basically being involuntarily committed to a mental institution.”
Michael Walsh says,
Good idea — let’s adjudicate more folks as mentally ill, because obviously we don’t have enough of them. But what about that civil-liberty-threatening, “health care professional would have an obligation to report” bit? Shouldn’t that make us just a tiny bit nervous — especially in light of the president’s series of executive orders about guns in January, two of which helpfully stated:
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Walsh adds "The flagrant abuse of psychiatry as a tool to control or eliminate political opposition could never happen here, right?" and then links to this little nugget.
In just 13 words the man encapsulated what our government thinks of us:
Exactly. Just shut up and do as you're told. I am important and powerful and you are not. Unless you are lining my pockets I don't give a rat's ass about you or your opinion.
If the NC GOP has any principles the man would be censured. If they had any sense, they'd put him out to pasture to "spend more time with his family".
If you think they actually will I have a bridge to sell you.
This, to me, is a perfect example of what the Tea Party has been complaining about. This same attitude is held by Karl Rove, Rence Prebius, John McCain, John Boehner and all the Old Guard who think they're our betters and shovel piles of shit at us during election season to make sure we do our bit to keep them where they are. Then they turn around and violate their supposed principles by putting donors ahead of principles, businesses ahead of markets and big corporations ahead of the entrepreneurs.
This is what Steve Newton is always on about. It is why people are leaving the GOP. The time may well have come that the GOP is beyond saving and must be destroyed and rebuilt to be worth anything again. Maybe the new generation of Rubio, Cruz and Paul will prove me wrong but only time will tell.
That would be "the advocacy group" Gender Justice. Here's why:
Jill Gaulding, a cofounder of the advocacy group Gender Justice, claims that the University of Iowa is engaged in “pink shaming” and “cognitive bias” by making its football team’s opponents dress and undress in a locker room that is painted . . . pink:
“Most people understand the pink locker room as a taunt against the other team, calling them a bunch of ladies/girls/sissies/pansies/etc.,” according to an information sheet Gaulding and Gender Justice law partner Lisa Stratton distributed to the workshop attendees.
Gaulding’s handout quoted a passage from [former Iowa football coach Hayden] Fry’s autobiography where he said pink was a “passive” color and might put opponents in a passive mood. “Also, pink is often found in girls’ bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color,” according to a quote Gaulding said she took from Fry’s book.
Gaulding believes -- wait for it! -- that U.I. could face a lawsuit for ... gender discrimination(!!) based on Title IX and Title VII rules.
An 8th grader at Northeast Middle School in Bristol, CT, apparently was given a worksheet about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which stated:
Um, where to start?? Instructional Fair, the publisher of the worksheet, hasn't heard of a "little" thing called District of Columbia v. Heller? And McDonald v. Chicago? Really?? Let's see what occurred in these US Supreme Court cases ...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
A-HA! Only federal enclaves, eh? Not so fast, Jasper:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Now, given that I'm familiar with the field (teaching), it may be that the publication date of the worksheet is out of date. As you can see, Heller and McDonald are fairly recent cases. Dated materials are used in schools all the time. However, in a field like social studies where history and civics are covered, the instructor has to be on his/her toes to make sure materials are current. And this is a perfect example.
On the other hand, it may be that these materials are current and the author(s) have no idea what they hell they're talking about. I certainly hope it's the former.
From the Libertarian Party page:
I asked this yesterday: "Why not, supporters of gay 'marriage?' Would you have an issue with such unions (like polygamy) being legal? Under equal protection grounds?
Or, how 'bout this: Should the government get out of the 'business' of marriage altogether ... and leave it to churches or whatever?"
UPDATE: It seems Justice Sotomayor asked this very question during arguments over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8! Insty notes
Ted Olson’s answer was not entirely satisfactory, suggesting that a ban on polygamy or incest would be a ban on “conduct,” not one based on “status.”
“What I am trying to accomplish is multifold,” he told Merica. “I consider myself working on the next civil equality movement, just like women’s rights, LGBT rights and African-American Civil Rights. We are still in the early stages of eliminating discrimination against atheists and humanists. That is something I really want to accomplish.”
I guess the one thing I am missing here -- as is Mr. Stiefel -- is just how are atheists "civilly unequal" in the US today. Even among elected officials there is no test of religion permitted ("... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") If no atheist ever gets elected, it certainly ain't the Constitution's fault.
What atheist can't marry?
What atheist can't vote?
What atheist doesn't get equal pay for equal work (with all else being equal?)
Where are atheists being disallowed housing? Loans? Education?
Answer: None/They're not. Stiefel even agrees -- but not citing one single thing in which atheists are discriminated. And atheism won't be the "next civil rights issue" because about the only thing that's really offensive to atheists is any public display of religion. And that's just too damn bad. Being offended isn't a civil rights matter. Oh, and when it comes to intrusive (and clearly illegal) attempts at prayer and religious prosthelytizing in a place like a public school, it certainly isn't only atheists who make a fuss.
Sorry, Mr. Stiefel. You might have had me thinking differently had you actually made a case. But you cite nothing. Using your money for rallies and bringing in possibly the currently most famous atheist around, Richard Dawkins, to say “Discrimination comes from ignorance, and in this case it is ignorance about our beliefs” without noting what discrimination you all face is, well, pointless. I'm glad you're doing good things with your millions (like helping with cancer research), but otherwise *yawn*
As one commenter put it,
What do you want? A constitutional amendment reaffirming that 'Yeah, we're cool with Athiests'? Things have a habit of gaining acceptance with the times, and what is essentially a new religion stomping it's feet and shouting 'Recognize me, too!' does not ease the process along.
And it doesn't have to be accepted by anyone as long as the people who believe as they do are treated equally under the law. Period.
The early word on the US Supreme Court taking up the issue of gay "marriage" is that it is "wary" of making a "broad ruling" on the matter.
... during the argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered a swing vote, raised concerns about the court entering "uncharted waters" on an issue that divides the states.
Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal appeals court ruling that had earlier struck down the California law, known as Proposition 8.
In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."
None of the justices indicated support for the Obama administration's favored solution, which would strike down Proposition 8 and require the eight states that already recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
Interesting in this debate are the fairly recent comments by left bloc SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who "has long harbored doubts about the ruling."
"It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.
Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.
As I've argued here and elsewhere numerous times, I don't understand why gay Americans do not argue from a 14th Amendment equal protection angle -- that is, don't be hung up on the term "marriage;" argue that gays are entitled to the same governmental benefits as straight couples whether a state has defined the union as "marriage" or a "civil union." Overlawyered's Walter Olson makes much the same point today here.
Discussion-hindering comments like these aside, I think in 20-30 years not many people will care much about the issue. But if, like the author of the linked comments feels, gay "marriage" becomes defined as a "civil right," then automatically the religious beliefs of Catholics, many Protestants, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims become "bigoted." And "bigoted" beliefs beget "discriminatory" actions. And this is then where the federal government could step in.
Don't think so? Well, we've already seen how our current administration wanted religious-based institutions to violate certain principles with regards to implementation of ObamaCare. And then consider something which I heard a caller to a pundit show mention -- an act of Congress which stood for almost 100 years: The Edmunds–Tucker Act. This was passed in response to the Mormon Church's stance on polygamy. Just check out the punitive federal actions against the LDS Church at the link.
Which brings me to an issue which I really have yet to get a decent response to from outspoken supporters of gay "marriage." That is, if the Supreme Court orders that two homosexuals are permitted to "marry," then why not other sorts of unions ... like the aforementioned polygamy, for instance? Less than two years ago a family planned to file a lawsuit challenging the [state] law against polygamy on -- wait for it -- 14th Amendment equal protection grounds. And consider what one of the judges who voted to overturn California's Proposition 8 said: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” To which I asked,
... what is to prevent some judge from claiming "The number involved in a relationship no longer forms an essential part of marriage"? Or some other manifestation thereof?
Indeed. What would? And why not, supporters of gay "marriage?" Would you have an issue with such unions (like polygamy) being legal? Under equal protection grounds?
Or, how 'bout this: Should the government get out of the "business" of marriage altogether ... and leave it to churches or whatever?
If it isn't nutty mayor Mike Nutter wanting to go after a magazine for possible criminal charges because of an article on race, it's city district attorney Seth Williams following porn sites via his Twitter account.
FOR AT LEAST two recent weeks, the Twitter account of District Attorney Seth Williams was following two accounts that regularly dished out nude and seminude photos of women.
The accounts, @RateMyLatin and @RateMyEbony, were suspended between March 9 and March 11 by Twitter and disappeared from the D.A.'s account. They resumed posting on March 12 but were not restored to Williams' feed.
The hilarious thing, as I heard WPHT radio's Chris Stigall mention this morning, is that Williams' spokeswoman, Tasha Jamerson, claims "If the lewd accounts 'tweet or retweet something that you write and you check to see who retweeted you or mentioned you in a tweet, you are automatically added to their followers.'" Which anyone familiar with Twitter knows is absolutely false. One must click an account's "Follow" button to actively follow another Twitter account.
I had to laugh at one of the comments at the Philly.com article which said that perhaps Williams should be investigated by the city Human Relations Commission because he didn't follow @RateMyCaucasian.
Williams apparently likes Twitter for silly purposes. He also recently offered to investigate the 76ers Andrew Bynum for possible fraud via the social media site.
Philly Abortion Doc Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Case 'A Lynching.'
A lawyer for a Philadelphia abortion provider on trial for allegedly killing live babies and a woman patient calls the murder case "an elitist, racist prosecution."
Defense lawyer Jack McMahon also accuses city officials of "a prosecutorial lynching" of his client, who is black.
McMahon says city officials are applying "Mayo Clinic" standards to Gosnell's inner-city clinic in West Philadelphia.
As the text lingo goes, "LOL." And anyone else note the irony in the racism claims ... and then the last sentence in the quote?
The implication — which I think is very strong — that the “speech” is indeed unprotected by the First Amendment under the “incitement” exception is absolutely wrong: Under Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana, the speech in the article is clearly protected. (It’s true that a narrow range of speech that is intended and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct, with imminent meaning within hours or at most a few days, rather than at some unspecified future time, is unprotected, but the magazine article definitely does not fit within that.) And it’s quite troubling, I think, when a mayor (who has power over, among others, the Police Department) suggests that the expression of opinions that he disapproves of about race is constitutionally unprotected.
Which should go without saying. It's way beyond "troubling." It's sheer, unbridled idiocy is what it is.
First, something which virtually no one cares about, yet get major comics site article space: Fantagraphics To Release Book Of Guantanamo Courtroom Sketches.
When the military trials at Guantanamo began in 2006, no cameras were permitted in the courtroom, and only one sketch artist -- Janet Hamlin -- was allowed inside to document the events, creating sketches of the prisoners which grant them a measure of dignity they'd otherwise not been afforded, while giving all of us a glimpse at this significant moment in our nation's history.
Four words: Cry me a river. I'm certain these socially and culturally regressed barbarians care about your dignity, right? Not to mention your life.
Next, Robot 6 is miffed that the graphic novel Persepolis has been removed from a high school's library. Now, even the article notes that the book won "the American Library Association’s Alex Award for adult books that have special appeal to teenage readers." Thinking that the term "adult" actually means something, perhaps that was the reason for what the school did?
I haven't read the book myself, so I did some checking. This review site states that the recommended age group for the book be 21. It goes on to note that there's profanity "on almost every page," and that the second of the tale has quite a bit of sexual content. I am about as pro-free speech as one can possibly be; however, as I noted on this post, age appropriateness is probably the only thing I have a real issue with when it comes to free expression. If the review above is accurate, then technically (and even legally), only 18 year-olds at the high school in question should be allowed to check out the book. If the librarian held the book in a special area that said just this, then fine. Otherwise, I fail to see why people would be up in arms about a school removing the GN.
If this was a public library that was available to the entire public, that's a diferent story. But this is a school library. There are better battles to pick than this.
Hans has some good stuff this time out. Check it:
We live in a culture where harsh but truthful criticism, or exposure of wrongdoing, is viewed by some as "bullying," especially when it affects someone's inflated "self-esteem."
-- DePaul University has punished a student for publicizing the names of fellow students who admitted vandalizing his organization's pro-life display," classifying his speech as "bullying." The display had been approved by the university, and the 13 students who wrecked it confessed.
-- When historian Michael Bellesiles's academic fraud was exposed by fellow historians, resulting in his forced resignation, a leading "anti-bullying" expert, who shared Bellesiles' progressive political views, got him a new job at her university, claiming that he "was the victim of a "mobbing" or group "bullying" campaign by his fellow historians, who were distinguished people from across the political spectrum.
-- The Minister of Education in Ontario, the most populous Canadian province, has sought to define pro-life advocacy in religious schools as gender-based bullying. Self-styled crusaders against "workplace bullying" want to impose broad definitions of bullying at the expense of free speech and use existing overly broad school bullying rules as models for laws against workplace bullying that would hold employers and co-workers liable for compensatory and punitive damages for speech and expressive conduct deemed to be bullying -- something that disturbs groups such as the Chamber of Commerce.
There's plenty more at the link above. Also check out Hans' More Calls for Censorship to Prevent “Bullying.”
From Classical Values:
This is it. This is where the rubber meets the road for Federalism. Will California stand strong or not? Will they let this continue or not? I fear that if San Diego caves then the rest may follow suit. Los Angeles however, is not San Diego which is exactly why they didn't start in LA. I am fearful that this experiment with federalism (and personal liberty) is in jeopardy. It is my belief that the Feds see this is a toehold they cannot abide. If California flouts Federal law on this matter it will be much easier to erode the centralization of power.
Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. Let Utah be Utah and let Delaware be Delaware.
We've written about Canada's nutty "human rights commissions;" here's yet another example of the type of insanity they foster:
Earls’ “Albino Rhino” is officially extinct.
Earls Restaurants will take beer sold under the 25-year-old brand off the menu after a Vancouver woman with albinism filed a BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the chain in 2012. The same craft beer will still be sold, but just as “Rhino.”
Ikponwosa (I.K.) Ero, representing a group with the genetic condition that causes a lack of pigmentation in skin, hair and eyes and often blindness, accused the popular restaurant of discrimination based on physical disability and colour.
Yeah, never mind that the beer was named after an actual animal. And exactly how did the chain "discriminate" by selling this brew? Peter Ash, CEO of an albino advocacy organization, said “It would be like saying, let’s put in some Alzheimer appetizers, Down syndrome daiquiris or cerebral palsy cocktails." Uh, yeah, right.
I like this from the comments section: "Green Giant brand should be wary of offending tall individuals, and Sunny-D of those who might be depressed."
And so it goes.
Loyal Colossus reader Fred G. sends word of a new idea a state is using (in this case, North Carolina) to combat, among other things, voter fraud:
Newly designed North Carolina driver’s licenses coming this summer will be used to distinguish people who are not U.S. citizens, a measure that state transportation officials describe as a safeguard against voter fraud and civil-rights advocates describe as an avenue for discrimination.
Already in the works is a license that will be issued starting March 25 to one class of non-U.S. citizen: recipients of the federal program implemented by President Barack Obama in August to give a two-year reprieve from deportation for immigrants who meet certain conditions, mostly those brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents.
Across the top of the new license is a pink strip. In the center, red capital letters say, “NO LAWFUL STATUS.”
On the side, another set of red capital letters say, “LIMITED TERM,” referring to the license holder’s two-year reprieve from deportation.
Which makes sense to me as a whole, although the "No Lawful Status" line would have to be changed as under the new federal these folks would have lawful status . Nevertheless, of course, the usual ridiculous analogies are being spewed forth by the usual suspects:
According to Moises Serrano, a Yadkin County immigrant activist who has applied for deferred action, the design is similar to the Star of David that Jews were forced to wear in Germany under the Nazi regime.
“This singles me out,” Serrano said. “Imagine trying to get on a flight at the airport, and you have to use this license. It’s an invasion of my privacy. I am undocumented and unashamed, but I say that on my terms.”
Yeah, makes sense ... except that, y'know, Jews in Europe were actually legal citizens of the nations they lived in and were singled out simply because of their religion. And then rounded up. And then murdered. Other than that, Serrano has a point.
Via the New York Post: Homeless man sues parents for ‘too little love.’
A Brooklyn man slapped his mom and dad with a $200,000 lawsuit that blames them for leaving him homeless and destitute because they allegedly raised him and his sibling in a poor household — and didn’t love him enough.
Bernard Anderson Bey, 32, claims he never got enough affection or support from parents Vickie and Bernard Manley — so now he wants them to mortgage their share of a Bedford-Stuyvesant home so their family can buy two Domino’s Pizza franchises to employ them all, according to the bizarre suit.
“Our whole family is really poor, and my father doesn’t care about the situation,” Bey said yesterday. “I feel unloved and abandoned.”
Domino's?? Dude, at least do a Papa John's for heaven's sake. Domino's pizza blows!
Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!
Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family."
He said just before he went on a murder spree that I'm pretty sure is going to have more than a few people, public officials or otherwise, saying their thoughts and prayers are with the families.
Remember: Only trained professionals like police officers need guns for their safety. They are the only ones we can trust with guns.
“It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack,” it says. “Delaying action . . . would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.”
I see. Now change he word "state" to "individual" or "citizen" and that becomes wildly out of true with our current laws.
UPDATE: I just found this video.
So by his logic, any weapon with greater than 10 rounds in the magazine is a weapon of war. If that is so, why do the police have them? Are they at war? If so, with whom?
Am I to believe that a criminal who possesses a gun illegally or who will willingly commit a crime will comply with the part of the law that prohibits magazines with greater than ten rounds?
... well, you know well by now: Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.
Just remember, though: Waterboarding is still 100 times worse. Because it happened under George Bush. Or something.
Pennsylvania is gonna try again -- to privatize its "state stores," the only places where wine and hard liquor can be purchased throughout the entire state. PA is the only state besides Utah (no surprise there) with such an antiquated set-up. Many past attempts at privatization have failed, in big part due to the influence of the unions that represent state store employees.
Not being a resident of the state but living nearby, I find PA's set-up bewildering, and, frankly, stupid. Wine and hard liquor must be purchased at these state stores, and beer can be found only at beverage distributor outlets. Contrast that to Delaware where [privately run] liquor stores sell all three items in one place. Many other states allow beer to be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores like 7-11.
I didn't realize just how stupid PA's system was until I traveled out to the western part of the state, specifically the little mining town of Clymer. Its state store hours were absolutely ridiculous -- no evening hours at all, and it is open about five hours per day. This ridiculousness would drastically change under Gov. Tom Corbett's plan:
Under the plan, retail beer distributors, who now can only sell by the case or keg, could apply for a license to sell the alcohol trifecta: beer, wine, and liquor. Supermarkets could sell a customer up to two six-packs of beer, and up to six bottles of wine. Convenience stores? A six-pack to go, no wine. Restaurants and taverns, which can now sell a customer no more than two six-packs of beer, could sell up to six bottles of wine.
Corbett says the privatization plan will generate approximately $1 billion in four years, the funds to go towards public education. Sounds like a double win to me.
In yet another edition of Your Lives Aren't Worth As Much the "media watchdog" arm of the Democratic Party known as Media Matters has a little bit of answering to do. Its head honcho, David Brock, is exhibiting brazen hypocrisy without compare as his bodyguard carried a concealed Glock handgun and committed various felonies as a result:
TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.
According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.
[Haydn] Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.
As you'd expect, Media Matters has been very pro-gun control, "commissioning hundreds of pieces supportive of restrictions on firearms."
SEMI-RELATED: Today's Matt Lauer actually asks Al Gore if his sale of Current TV to Aljazeera is hypocritical because "you in the book blast other television news programs saying this: 'Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal and gas companies.'"
Aljazeera, of course, is funded by the government of Qatar -- which gets its income from ... selling oil.
I certainly understand that criticism. I disagree with it, because I think al Jazeera has obviously long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news-gathering organization. And by the way, its climate coverage has been far more extensive and of high quality than any of the networks here.
Notice Big Al didn't answer the question. Lauer presses him, and Gore ducks again:
LAUER: But if they get funding from a country that has, that basis its wealth on fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are the enemy you target in climate change, isn't there a bit of hypocrisy in that?
GORE: Well, I get the criticism, I just disagree with it because this network has established itself. It’s objective, it’s won major awards in countries around the world, and its climate coverage, as I said a moment ago, has been outstanding and extensive.
Yeah, its climate coverage has been "outstanding and extensive," yet as Lauer pointed out, the friggin' network is funded largely by ... revenues from oil!!
Finance industry running from high taxes to the warmth of the Sunshine State - NYPOST.com: "The firms can easily pick up and move out of the New York region because technology allows them to do their work anywhere, she said."
As technology has been advancing we've seen the advent and the rise of the virtual employee. Hell, I've been one. I was on a project for two years and was only in the office once every other week. As this phenomenon accelerates I suspect more and more people will be virtual employees and where you live in relation to your job will matter less and less. The valence for living in or proximate to a city will very likely decline and perhaps quite rapidly. Could this lead to a stronger stratification in cities between the very rich and the rest? As the middle class leaves for STEM/IT jobs that are online why stay in the city? What value does it hold? It seems more logical to me for a couple who are looking to save some money and start a family to head for a smaller town where housing and land are cheaper. Lower crime rates and potentially better schools (although not so much in Florida). However, what if Professor Reynolds is right? What if we're seeing not just a higher education bubble, but a lower one too? What if they both burst and The Khan Academy is the new model? In that scenario the whole chessboard is upended and frankly I have no idea what comes afterward.
I can tell you now if I could keep my job and didn't have to worry about schools or going in to an office I would not be in Delaware. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Delaware but there are far finer places to live. (Hello Tahiti!) To be fair, family concerns would preclude the mass exodus for the doors in my case and likely many others too. But look at Wall Street and look at Miami. Where do many New Yorkers retire to? This may well be two birds with one stone here. Imagine you're a Wall Street Titan with aging parents in NYC. You move your business to Florida and pack up Aging Mom and Getting On In Years Dad and head for sunnier shores. Alternately, imagine they're already retired to Florida. Moving to Miami saves you from having to make the trek down every year at Christmas. You're already there.
All in all hedge funds are the most mobile. They have little infrastructure to support and most of them a small shops with big funds. Their customers are institutional investors so they're hands off and not dropping in to the office to see you.
Remember well that equities is a forward looking business. These guys have to be 18 months ahead at all times. They're looking past Bloomberg to see what the future holds and they don't like what they see. New York is going to survive. But if those who stay see that those who've left are faring better it would be hard to see a reason to stay.
Ilya Somin explains why richer-than-Mitt Romney John Kerry failed miserably to distinguish between the legality of Richard Nixon's bombing of Cambodia, and Boss Obama's bombing of Libya:
Kerry’s efforts to distinguish the two cases are far from successful. He claims that the Libya intervention was legal because of the need for swift, decisive action. But of course Nixon could and did make the same argument. Paul correctly points out that the Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress and does not create any exceptions for cases where presidents believe that they need to act quickly. Moreover, as Allahpundit points out, the president actually had plenty of time to seek and gain congressional approval before he started the bombing, as he spent weeks mobilizing support from the United Nations, our European allies, and others.
Read the whole thing. Oh, and in case you're scratching your head about the title, lest ye forget.
Does anyone seriously believe that Seau would have quit playing football knowing that he might suffer some long-term physical damage due to the inherent brutality of the sport?
That's how Newsbusters' Mark Finkelstein puts it regarding Tom Brokaw's moronic comparison:
BROKAW: And all these component parts claim it's not their responsibility. NRA says it's not about the guns. It's about violence. It's about mental health. Mental health people say we can't share information because we have privacy issues here. The video game industry says we have a right under the First Amendment. Reverend Al, it reminds me a lot of what happened in the South in the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Good people stayed in their houses and didn't speak up when there was carnage in the streets and the total violation of a fundamental rights of African-Americans as they marched in Selma, and they let Bull Connor and the redneck elements of the South and the Klan take over their culture in effect and become of face of it. And now a lot of people who I know who grew up during that time have deep regrets about not speaking out. There were a few brave souls who did and they were knocked down pretty hard within their own communities for coming out and speaking out in a moderate way, not even in a liberal way about the right of African-Americans to be able to vote, for example, and to walk into any restaurant they wanted to. But there was a lot of silence at the time. Now it's time for the people who do have strong feelings, who are feeling that they can't do anything about it, to kind of band together and have something to say here. And again, it's got to be the whole approach.
Yeah, I get it -- not speaking out about curtailing constitutional rights for all Americans is akin to not speaking about protecting the constitutional rights for [a group of] Americans. Got it.
"Progressives" have this proclivity for naming virtually anything they fervently desire as the "civil rights issue of our time." Like "Plugs" Biden declaring that "transgender discrimination is the civil rights issue of our time'." Or Boss Obama claiming that education is. Or Democrat New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez stating that immigration reform is.
And so on.
... and the News Journal, as you would expect, lionizes Judge Murray Schwartz. Perhaps the singularly most laughable paragraph is this last one:
Whatever costs Judge Schwartz paid for his blind loyalty to the intent of the Constitution in public life, every Delawarean and future generations will be indebted to him for such a singular principled focus that continues to pay off in our public and private lives.
"Blind loyalty to the intent ...??!!" Riiiiiight. Schwartz was the epitome of an activist judge. Then-US Supreme Court Associate Justice William Rehnquist dubbed Schwartz's deseg plan "[a] remedy more Draconian than ever approved by this court." He continued:
"There is substantial doubt that the abolition of these 11 school districts is an appropriate equitable remedy for the interdistrict violation found by the courts." Previous high court rulings require changes "only to the extent necessary to cure the violation. Yet the district court has here treated a series of independent school districts as if they were a 'railroad in reorganization' without any attempt to comply with the (prior) requirements."
Indeed, as I noted way back in 2007, the state did attempt to comply with what the court(s) desired, only to be told "It's not good enough":
But [former News Journal Editor John] Taylor obviously didn't get together with others at his paper, for a month and a half prior, the News Journal printed a "desegregation timeline" which clearly notes "U.S. District Court rejects state desegregation plans and says plan must include Wilmington and its surrounding districts." (This was in 1976.) Then, in 1977, the timeline says "State devises plan for busing black students out of Wilmington." If memory serves (from past reading, and I was a middle school student in northern DE schools at the time), this was a voluntary busing plan that the state legislature devised. Nevertheless, Judge Schwartz rejected the 1977 plan.
Be sure to read that nearly six year-old post for information you'll never see in the pages of the News Journal, for it doesn't fit THE NARRATIVETM.
And how did Judge Schwartz's "singular principled focus" "pay off" for the children of New Castle County -- in particular for those whom he believed he was helping most? Answer: It didn't. Check it:
"... the black-white achievement gap remains large and steady despite many years of "ideal" racial balance.
"This gap is revealed in both national studies and in studies of individual school systems, and the gap exists regardless of the extent and duration of desegregation.
"Most importantly, unlike the time of Brown, there is no reasonable way that school segregation can be invoked as a primary cause of this achievement gap, nor is there any credible evidence that school desegregation -- in the form of racial balancing -- has diminished the gap to any important degree."
Ironically, again, state lawmakers back then utilized (or, attempted to utilize) an early form of what the entire state now has as law -- school choice -- as the remedy for desegregation. But that wasn't (and never is) sufficient for the social engineers among us.
DesMoines Register columnist Donald Kaul -- who, it notes, suffered a heart attack back in July -- had better simmer down about gun control, or he'll endanger his health (again). He sounds just like Delaware's own Delaware Dem of the LGOMB, who once advocated "rounding up all Republicans" and shooting them:
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
Dare I say "remember this" the next time some "progressive" dolt yammers about "civil dialogue"?
Kaul also wants a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But in order to do what he wants above, he'll need that first. (And he did put that first in his bullet point list, by the way.) And the chances of such a repeal are incredibly slim to less than none. (Indeed -- if possible, the chances would be a negative integer.)
It truly is amazing how "tolerant" "progressives" pick and choose who their enemies are. Radical Islamic fundie terrorists who spare nothing to behead those whom they despise (meaning virtually everybody) are treated with kid gloves by these "progressives" ("Be sensitive and tolerant!" we're told, "Give them constitutional rights!" etc. etc. etc.), yet, stupefyingly, these fundies are remarkably similar to people like Daul. Seriously. "Progressives" frequently compare fundies like al Qaeda and the Taliban to conservative Americans; however, when has a conservative American penned something like Daul in a mainstream periodical -- advocating torturing politicians who disagree with them on policy, and murdering those who refuse to follow [an unjust] law??
I like Glenn Reynolds' retort:
This kind of talk makes me want to buy an assault rifle. Or twelve. And really, dude, the fact that you’re angry doesn’t give you some sort of a pass from the norms of civil society. Or, if it does, be prepared to tolerate a lot of things that you’ll find intolerable. Because, you know, a lot of people are angry.
By way of my "blogfather" John Rosenberg, Iowahawk notes that "a Briton is 5 times more likely to die from government health care than an American is to die from a gunshot.”
... there are “nearly 12,000 preventable deaths in hospitals in England every year.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 11,493 firearms homicides in the U.S. in 2009, about the same number as deaths by hospital in Great Britain. Since the population of the U.S. is about five times greater than Great Britain’s 62 million, Iowahawk’s conclusion seems about right, if you substitute “die from a firearm homicide” for his “die from a gunshot.”
In related news, many "progressives" thought NRA chief Wayne LaPierre was nuts for asking for an armed cop in every school; however, just as these "progressives" have forgotten how George W. Bush "shredded the Constitution" now that Boss Obama is in office and has not only continued but upped these very same policies, they conveniently look the other way and slyly whistle when one asks about Bill Clinton's LaPierre-esque proposal back over a decade ago?
... so called "progressives" yammered that the "gun confiscation" complaints of pro-2nd Amendment types were "paranoid delusion?" Uh huh: “Confiscation could be an option.”
In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.
Cuomo continued, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Elsewhere, Chicago War Zone Mayor and former Boss Obama official Rahm Emanuel thinks his power extends beyond his
city's war zone's boundaries:
Sneed is told that Mayor Rahm Emanuel isn’t waiting for federal or state governments to act on gun control.
◆ Translation: The mayor, who supports a ban on assault weapons, is planning a crackdown on suburban gun shops that sell to “straw purchasers” — people who buy guns for those who can’t legally own them — and it could include police stings on suburban gun shops.
◆ To wit: Although there are no gun shops in Chicago, a top mayoral source tells Sneed that Rahm has ordered Police Supt. Garry McCarthy and the city corporation counsel’s office to begin using the “city’s own authority” to stem such gun sales by shops outside the city.
But again, these must just be ... gun nut "paranoid fantasies."
Please read John Young's response to County Councilman Jea Street over at Transparent Christina (newly linked in our Delaware Bloggers section). It deals with the recent federal Dept. of Ed. probe into the Christina District's (Delaware's most populous) [supposed] discriminatory discipline practices.
Gun control legislation taskmaster Joe Biden back in 2008 regarding, ahem, his now-boss:
"I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”
Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.
“If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden added, referring to Obama.
Look at it this way: At least he'll be entertaining, as he always is.
From the Are You Fucking Kidding Me files: In response to a recent increase in crime, Paragould Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall offered residents at a town hall meeting Thursday night at West View Baptist Church what could be considered an extreme solution — armed officers patrolling the streets on foot.
Stovall told the group of almost 40 residents that beginning in 2013, the department would deploy a new street crimes unit to high crime areas on foot to take back the streets.
"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.
"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."
Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.
"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it."
So let's recap: If you are doing something suspicious like walking in public, police have a reasonable suspicion you are a criminal and you may be stopped and questioned. I've not researched this but what are the odds that the area in question is populated mostly by black or brown people? I can assure you I'd be out walking and would absolutely refuse to provide any ID for anything whatsoever. I would also sue the pants off the city, the department and the chief personally.
Next: Who owns the company that made the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting?
So before you go blaming the NRA, blame the teachers.
Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has, as usual, a thoughtful post up today about what to do regarding guns in America. He highlights the American government's track record of violence as a ... "measure":
The problem with the call that "This. Has. To. Stop." is that much of the underlying culture of violence has been perpetuated by the government -- especially for the past forty years -- and that asking for solutions from the government when violence is the problem is, well, problematic.
We are killing other people's kids around the world every day in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Honduras. There's an important if unlovely and uncomfortable point to be reinforced here: dead Pakistani school children at the hands of US drones no less constitute young lives pointlessly snuffed out, with grieving parents who have emptiness in their souls than the children who will never come back to their bedrooms in Connecticut.
We are the world's largest exporter of weapons. We spend more on weapons for our "defense" than the rest of the world combined. That, "They are coming to get us" mentality within the US is exactly the mentality that politicians of all parties use with reference to the rest of the world, so why should you be surprised to see it echoed internally. It's fractal, I think.
Violence in America is in part so prevalent because, despite our mantra of freedom, the power of the State is as pre-conditioned to the use of violence as those paranoid nuts that pandora believes should not own guns.
pandora being of the LGOMB, of course.
Speaking of the LGOMB, Steve also shreds the execrable Delaware Douche, whose actual appearance is as disgusting as his moronic invective. If you can get past DD's asininity, you might actually find some agreement -- like I did.
Douche then says:
Next step, anyone caught with an illegally purchased gun or a banned gun is sentenced to life in prison, or permanent deportation from the United States. Your choice.
This is just a tad of the absurdity in the vast majority of the rest of this idiot's post. Like, yeah -- a battered wife who fears for her life as a last resort purchases and illegal gun to protect herself. She should go to prison for the rest of her life. Right. Yet Douche scoffs and screams when anyone even suggests any sort of criminal penalty for a late term abortion simply for convenience. Not to mention, isn't it the "progressives" who scream loudest about the US having the largest prison population on the planet?
Douche also blames -- wait for it! -- Ronald Reagan for the lack of mental health care. Uh huh. Sorry, Douche, but your kindred spirits bear a lot of blame for that one. And it was in the name of civil liberties that they did what they did. Y'know, civil liberties which the 2nd Amendment is a part of. But we know very well by now that for radical moonbats like Delaware Douche, some liberties are more important than others. And they're the ones that radical moonbats like. It's that simple.
The "progressives" are out in force today, as could easily be predicted, pushing for more gun control in the wake of the incredibly tragic massacre in Connecticut yesterday. Here are some links which will hopefully quell some of the hyperbole:
Jeffrey Goldberg: What can we do stop massacres?
Glenn Reynolds: Gun-free zones provide false sense of security.
Britain: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade. And the UK has very strict gun control laws.
Roger Kimball: Already one is hearing the predictable homilies about “gun control,” as if depriving people of their liberties would somehow contravene evil.
Donald Sensing: Maybe the Left oughta look at Hollywood and its glorification of guns.
I've also seen a lot of talk in the last 24 hours about the need for more mental health services. While this is certainly a decent sentiment, consider: If there is an obviously mentally disturbed person, how does one -- or the state -- force an individual to get needed assistance? And if you do attempt to mandate mental health treatment, groups like the ACLU will step in to "inform you of your rights." They did it with mental hospitals, and they do it with [mentally ill] homeless, telling them that they do not have to get off the streets to get necessary treatment, or in the case of, say, nasty weather.
So again, tell me "progressives": How do we get people that need treatment the reatment they need ... if they don't want it?
The ACLU is so "vigilant" about a person's rights that even mentally disturbed people have 'em. After all, that is the essence of a free society, is it not? However, ironically (and astonishingly), the civil rights group has always believed that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right. Thus, the ACLU's "free society" means the mentally ill can refuse necessary treatment and assistance, but a completely sane, law-abiding individual is not permitted to defend him/herself with a handgun.
First up is his PolitiFact Is The Liar Of The Year.
But more importantly (to us) is his Where Will the Senate ‘School-to-Prison Pipeline’ Hearing Lead?
But the facts do not support the kind of legislation that seems to be under consideration. Two recent and highly sophisticated studies by Rochester University professor Joshua Kinsler shed new light on the well-established trends noted above. For the first time, Kinsler factored-in between school variations in discipline policy when looking at the racial disparity in out-of-school suspensions. He discovered that, within any given school, black and white students sent to the principal’s office for a given reason are issued the same suspensions at the same rates. The disparity is all between schools.
Schools with predominantly black student bodies are more likely to issue suspensions, and to issue longer ones, for a given offense. White students at those schools get the same treatment, but most white students are in predominantly white schools that are less severe in their discipline policies. Black students at mostly white schools also get less severe punishments.
Kinsler did find that African American students were more likely to be referred to the principal’s office, which has long been seen as evidence of systemic racism. To investigate that explanation, Kinsler looked for any relationship between teachers’ referral rates to the principal’s office and the race of those teachers and of the students they refer. He found none. This does not mean that racism plays no role, but it calls into question the view that racism is a dominant factor in referrals to the principal’s office.
In a subsequent empirical study, Kinsler investigated what would happen if all schools were compelled to observe a more lenient suspension policy, to close the black/white discipline gap. He found that this would disproportionately hurt the achievement of African American students, widening the black/white achievement gap. The reason for this, according to Kinsler’s findings, is that serious suspensions do in fact discourage misbehavior, and that removing disruptive students from the class does improve the achievement of the other students.
Gee, who'da thought? Actually punishing misbehavior results in ... less of it!
It's always amusing to occasionally venture over to the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' place to see what lunacy has been going. Today, pandora writes about how the country "has lost its mind" because there was another shooting -- this time at a school in Connecticut. Naturally, these so-called "progressives" have a problem with the 2nd Amendment:
pandora: Hard to keep up with all these responsible gun owners. If only those 5th graders had been armed. I’m so sick of this.
Naturally, because of some freak, ALL gun owners -- the vast majority of which ARE responsible -- should be disarmed.
Is this really the price we continue to pay for freedom?
Yes, it is the price we pay for freedom. Because the freedom for the vast majority -- responsible people -- means there will always be a few irresponsible sickos who do what this vile specimen did in CT.
Then there's the illustrious Delaware Dem, whose invective is about as disturbing as his appearance:
A hearty fuck you to the NRA.
Ah! Maybe DD can round up all NRA members and have them shot?
Gun lovers: what’s more sacred? The life of a child, or a self-serving misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment? (Don’t bother answering).
Question 1: What "misinterpretation" of the 2nd Amendment abounds? Question 2: You actually ask the first part of your question when it's "progressives" who are the ones who prefer the killing of children with their "pro-choice at all times" stance?
The NRA is a terrorist organization and should be dealt with accordingly.
But of course! Again, they should all be rounded up and shot -- seriously. Right, DD?
Then, pandora agrees with DD that everyone should watch coverage of the shooting:
Everyone should watch every second of this. Maybe then we can actually discuss this.
LOL! But you don't WANT a discussion about it, pandora! You want people who believe in gun rights to accept YOUR beliefs.
There's assorted other snarky comments in there, about just what you'd expect. But ultimately it's not surprising at all that these peons want gun rights eradicated. They believe in government, after all -- that it can do anything. But do you trust government to protect you if you're threatened ... and your 2nd Amendment rights have been stripped? Y'know, like the government protected our personnel in Benghazi? Like it took care of its citizens in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy?
Don't be fooled. These cretins will spout off about mythical "misinterpretations" of the 2nd Amendment until the cows come home, but you can bet they'll be the first to nab a handgun in order to protect themselves if/when they realize government can't -- and won't -- protect them. It's exactly like how they yammer about how taxes should be higher, yet they do everything they can to avoid paying them. And remember how after 9/11 and other assorted instances of radical Islamic terror we were constantly reminded by the LGOMB about "tolerance" and "understanding," and how not all Muslims are terrorists, etc. This same message doesn't apply to law-abiding American gun owners, or the completely lawful National Rifle Association. The former should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights, and the latter is a "terrorist" organization.
Remember the words of William S. Burroughs: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
One last thing: These faux empaths are having a pow-wow this evening so they can feel good about themselves in part by collecting goods for the local food bank. But you can bet that if someone came in wearing an NRA hat, they'd have their canned goods thrown right back at 'em. Your contributions must be pure. Because that's how the LGOMB roll.
We've said it here many, many times: Forced proportionate representation is a laughable joke, yet the Obama DOE's civil rights division has chimed in on Delaware's Christina District. Kilroy has all the details.
It's worth noting here Hans Bader's past column wherein he notes,
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data.
Kilroy shares a News Journal analysis which found that
... black students made up about 32 percent of the state’s public school population but accounted for 55 percent of students who were suspended or expelled.
Which, according to the United States Supreme Court, this in and of itself means zilch. But then again, this is Obama's America -- where the mere suspicion of racism means ... racism. School officials, instead of enforcing standard, rational discipline, will look the other way now -- because they certainly do not want to be labeled a "racist."
Get ready for chaos, American teachers.
Among many other reasons, natch: The New York Times Co. wants a monopoly on the Constitution.
62% say stopping illegal immigration is “extremely/very important.” That handily beats “taking major steps to address global warming” as well as “[increasing] taxes on those with household incomes above $250,000.” … Providing a “path to citizenship for illegal immigrants” got only 37%.
Remember that the economy weighs more heavily on Latino voters' minds than immigration. It is silly (and insulting) to think that all Latinos favor illegal immigration and/or amnesty and/or instant citizenship for immigrants.
And this sort of nonsense is the stuff by which the GOP can make a strong case. We continually hear from "progressives" about "fairness;" however, it always seems to work one way with them. How is it "fair" that illegal immigrants get in-state tuition, yet citizens and legal immigrants -- who may happen to live out of state -- have to pay much more? Or, how is it that Arizona (to name one) gets hassled beyond belief by the feds for attempting to tighten immigration enforcement, yet so-called "sanctuary cities" which thumb their noses at federal law get away without even a slap on the wrist??
It makes total sense to support a common sense comprehensive immigration policy, and also support common sense laws. Or, to put it another way, what part of "illegal" don't "progressives" understand? Ah, but it seems their solution (like so many other non-solution solutions) is to just drop the term "illegal"!!
In today's News Journal's Wilmington Watch section, Andrew Staub writes about the efforts to have Wilmington (the "most dangerous city in America") sideline its breed specific laws surrounding pit bulls:
Mayor James M. Baker’s proposed legislation eliminating most of the breed-specific dog laws in Wilmington didn’t land on Thursday’s council agenda after making it out of committee last week. John Rago, Baker’s deputy chief of staff, had the legislation held after sensing he didn’t have the votes to get it passed, he said.
Baker’s proposal eliminates the majority of extra requirements pit bull owners face. That includes a registration process beyond normal dog licensing, a requirement pit bulls be muzzled in public places and another provision that, in most cases, bars anyone under 21 years old from walking a pit bull without the registered owner present.
It also increased licensing fees and penalties for dog owners who violated the city’s animal control laws. The intention was to create more responsible dog owners citywide, Rago said.
OK, look -- I am THE biggest animal lover on the planet. Ask anyone -- my relatives, girlfriend, students. People who know me best call me "Dr. Doolittle," for heaven's sake. However, because as Councilman Kevin F. Kelley Sr. says in the article -- "Some people in the city still keep the dogs for the wrong reasons or as a status symbol" -- and given pit bulls inherent nature, I fail to see how most of these rules are out of line.
I have met and known pit bulls who are extremely friendly and playful. Their owners were responsible and were just plain, good people. Unfortunately, a lot of PB owners are idiots. Take my current next-door neighbors. They used to have two PBs. About a year ago, one of them got loose and went after a young teen. The teen managed to get into a car, but the dog managed to get halfway inside as well. I'm not certain if the kid was injured; however, I do know the cops and animal control came, and the dog was taken away and euthanized. It seems the next-door neighbors didn't learn anything from that experience. The parents (or whatever status the adults in the house have) constantly have one of the two kids walk their remaining PB. With the [older] boy, it isn't too much of a problem because he doesn't seem to have much difficulty handling the dog. But sometimes the younger sister comes out with the dog in tow, and then it always seems the dog is one step away from breaking loose from her. And if this happens, it won't be pretty. This PB is one nasty MFer. The other night, my girlfriend and I walked out the front door with her dog (a cockapoo) to head to the veteranarian. Simultaneously, out comes the young girl with the pit bull -- who immediately began growling and barking and snapping his jaws at us. We hustled into the car, and the girl appeared to be on the verge of losing control of the damn dog ant any moment.
Now, we don't live in the city so Wilmington's laws wouldn't affect us. But as close as we to our idiot neighbors, neighborhoods in town are even closer together. Requiring a muzzle when being out and about and requiring at least a 21 year old to handle the animal are more-than quite reasonable regulations. I'd ask PB owners: Would you rather be sued out of existence if your dog attacks someone, or use a muzzle and make sure an adult handles the dog? Because my neighbors don't do the latter ... and as a result they're in definite danger of facing the former.
Numerous petitions from red states have been sent to the White House website declaring a desire to secede from the Union now that Boss Obama has won re-election. The Left, of course (and correctly), is having fun with the idea. But, of course, a mere eight years ago many of these same voices ... wanted to secede after that evil incarnate, George W. Bush, was re-elected:
In 2004 Salon ran an article about how liberals were embracing secession movements as a reaction to Bush’s re-election:
In the days after the election, fantasies of blue-state secession ricocheted around the Internet. Liberals indulged themselves in maps showing Canada gathering the blue states into its social democratic embrace, leaving the red states to form their own “Jesusland“…
The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.
I thought that the Civil War pretty much settled the issue of whether states can legally secede from the Union. Honest Abe's view was that the states were legally bound to the Union:
“No State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”
Basically, it'll take another civil war to allow a state (or states) to secede, but c'man everyone -- we ain't even close to that now.
Here's a taste:
Former Education Department lawyer Curt Levey discusses the implications of Obama replacing two Supreme Court justices who will reach the age of 80 in a few years. Here is his “Top Ten” list of potential Supreme Court rulings that might result from Justice Scalia or Justice Kennedy being replaced as they reach an advanced age and retire:
#10 – A ban on voter ID laws, making it impossible to stop voter fraud.
#9 – Carte blanche for hate-speech laws that ban videos and other expression deemed offensive to Muslims and other minorities.
#8 – Abolition of the death penalty.
#7 – A prohibition on tuition vouchers being used for religious schools, crippling the school choice movement.
#6 – Elimination of all legal limits on racial preferences for minorities.
#5 – A requirement for taxpayer-funding of abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy.
#4 – Invention of a constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump all state laws and religious objections.
#3 – Striking down, as unconstitutional discrimination, any serious attempt to curtail the flow of illegal immigrants into the country or to deny them government benefits.
#2 – Elimination of an individual right to possess firearms.
#1 – Enshrinement of welfare and government-provided healthcare as constitutional rights, thus fulfilling Barack Obama’s dream of a Supreme Court willing to bring about “redistribution of wealth” by “break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” (quoting 2001 PBS interview with Obama).
If I was a weatherman over there, I'd find another line of work, quick.
Lawyer: Education Department ignored the law in pressuring Oakland to use race in student discipline.
Horrifying. Imagine the amount of waste. Simply unconscionable. Think of what could have been done with that money. Think of the number of people who's lives have been ruined in the process. This is insanity.
TALLAHASSEE: Florida Supreme Court considers: Can immigrant illegally in U.S. practice law? - Florida - MiamiHerald.com: "It wasn’t illegal in the sense of being a criminal,” D’Alemberte said. “But it was not in compliance with the law.”
This man purports to be an officer of the court and does not understand the very definition of illegal. Either that or he is willfully distorting the meaning. Either one is grounds for revoking his law license in my view. Yes his client is entitled to a zealous defense but not at the expense of ethical obligations.
Can I use this defense? Can I go to court when I get a parking ticket and tell them I was not parked illegally, I was just "not in compliance with the law." Didn't pay your taxes that's ok, I was merely "not in compliance with the law."
No recipe for lawlessness now is there? Nah. Laws are for the little people.
Look, I am as pro-free speech as anyone (hell, moreso) but I have a difficult time dredging up sympathy for some of these entries from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. They've come out with their latest "Banned and Challenged" list of comics from around the country ... but you gotta take a look at the fine print.
Case in point: The story Bone was challenged by a parent (one!) because one character is "frequently depicted smoking a cigar, and his cigar butts are used to track him at one point." There's a beer selling competition between two of the other characters.
Now, in the link above, it (cleverly) doesn't mention the level of the school at which this book was available. You have to click on another link to the original story, and it's there that we learn the school is an elementary school. Now, personally, I wouldn't give a hoot if such a book was available at my daughter's elementary school (because my daughter knew better); however, is it really a big deal if some parent(s) do have an objection? It's an elementary school, for cripe's sake! Smoking and beer? Geez, heaven forbid a parent object to the age appropriateness of the book. The parent's objection was overruled by a vote of 10-1, by the way, which causes one to wonder if the CBLDF has too much time on its hands by making this case a cause célèbre when only one parent had an objection and said parent was heartily overruled. Indeed, it seems to make the case that freedom of speech is alive and well, don't'cha think??
In another case, Neil Gaiman's Sandman -- like Bone above -- is chided for being challenged as “unsuited for age group.” Again, why is this so hackle-raising?
Look, the CBLDF has a totally legit beef about the noted works being questioned for being available in general public libraries. They should be available there, since the entire public has access to them. (But they should be labeled and grouped appropriately, certainly.) Where they lose common sense is getting apoplectic about [parental] concerns over age appropriateness. Spare me. The current cadre of modern comics writers weren't so concerned about free speech andf censorship when they ripped Frank Miller for wanting to do a Batman story where he battled al Qaeda.
That's because they're "progressives" like our commander-in-chief who views only some speech worthy of general concern and protection. Let's test it by doing a comicbook parody of Islam and see how the CBLDF reacts. (There actually is someone who's more or less done that; I wonder how he's been treated. I'll check and let you know.)
... Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point.
Let that sink in for a moment. "Free speech must yield to other values and the need for order." Now, that second part actually makes some sense. In our (US, that is) history, during times of war and domestic disturbances (riots), limits on free expression have certainly be implemented. But even with these, as Posner notes, the second half of the last century witnessed an expansion of 1st Amendment rights during such moments, notably during the Vietnam War.
But consider the first part of the statement: "Yield to other values. Folks, this is precisely what the Left wants. Because it'll be their values that will supercede free speech. Don't believe me? Check out what goes on at college campuses. Universities routinely impose "speech codes" and other provisions based on the "values of the community." Fortunately, thus far, groups like FIRE have been quite successful in thwarting many (most) of the more egregious examples of this anti-First Amendment nonsense.
But for how long?
... has as one of its foundations the idea that the American (and Western, for that matter) political system -- equal justice for all, due process, equal rights ... even freedom of speech -- is still oppressive if it doesn't take into historical account the plight of minorities. This is at the heart of "white privilege" -- since whites have constructed the very system under which we [all] live, it inherently will "maintain" the dominant culture (or race).
You see what this means, right? The freedom to post a video which insults the prophet Mohammed doesn't apply to a white person -- because since the whole political and legal system was constructed by whites, it is for the benefit of them, not minorities, so the "white privilege" of the video maker "blinds him" to the injustice his video has done to [Islamic] minorities. (Of course, Muslims are not a minority in the countries in which they rioted; however, I am certain CRI would posit that since the white/Anglo world power structure has "exploited" these countries historically, and on a "transnational basis" the videographer still does not possess freedom of speech if it insults Islam.)
Make no mistake about our current administration's posture on this. Boss Obama talks about freedom of speech, but his entire academic and legal background was flooded by stuff like Critical Race Theory. If you're a product of the Martin Luther King Jr. era and utter something like "I don't see color," or "I treat everyone the same regardless of race," that is a huge no-no according to this academic sophistry. To adherents of CRI, "that is the most overt kind of racism." Or, "to ignore race is to be more racist than to acknowledge race." CRIers call that "neo-racism."
Posner, in his Slate article, points out that "progressives" may be having second thoughts about all their hard-fought free expression gains during the late 20th century ... just as conservatives have now embraced them. In addition to campus speech police, liberals have been keen on hate crimes legislation and sexual harassment laws. But, "for the left, the [1st] amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline."
Ironically, Posner writes that
Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, “like vampires … die in the sunlight” rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society.
And what did the Left do when the Right trounced on the First Amendment, especially during the 1950s during the Red Scare (see: Communism in the above quote)? Right -- they (rightly) screamed bloody (unconstitutional) murder at guys like Joe McCarthy. And "progressives" today still admire Communism -- that "bad idea" that's like a zombie, according to Posner. Indeed, academics and Hollywood types have little qualms about hanging out and lauding guys like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro ... and no one can do a thing about it. Because these mental midgets have free speech. Yet these very same people would squelch others' First Amendment rights if it offended some value of theirs. Just. Like. Chavez. And. Castro. Have. Done. Routinely.
If it's scary that our president believes in such legal principle, it's even more worrisome that members of the US Supreme Court do, too. Recall this post where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed agreement with many similar legal precepts. If judges like Ginsberg ever gain a majority sway on the high court, especially together with a liberal chief exec like Boss Obama, you can kiss the 1st Amendment as we know it today goodbye.
Maybe this will never happen. I certainly hope so, and there are bright spots of legal sanity among Ginsberg's philosophical brethren. The highly liberal Ninth Circuit's Alex Kosinski tore asunder concepts put forth by Critical Race Theorists, stating CRIers "have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable." Indeed.
But that won't stop Critical Race Theorists and other "progressives." No way. These "theories" are merely yet another exercise in their grabbing of power -- the power to stop the speech of their political and philosophical opponents. And all in the name of "community values," "tolerance," and "mutual respect." But these excuses weren't good enough for them when it was their speech being quelled ... and they won't be sufficient for non-"progressives" today. Not as long as we remain vigilant.
This exchange between Representative Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez occurred in late July. Now consider its relevance today:
That explains this, then:
President Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, hit the Sunday talk show circuit yesterday to defend the administration’s Middle East policy in light of a week’s worth of spreading violence and the first murder of a U.S. ambassador since Jimmy Carter was president. In the course of defending Obama, Rice claimed: 1) that the security at the Benghazi consulate was adequate; 2) the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were not pre-planned; and 3) all of this violence is due solely to one 11-minute video on YouTube. All three of these positions are preposterous.
The reality is that Obama has failed internationally for the same reason he has failed at home: arrogance.
Here's just a bit more of Boss Obama's alternate reality:
And on and on and on ...
The good news is that, in this latest Boss Obama fiasco, the American people -- unlike the current administration -- recognize that freedom of speech is more important than the delicate sensibilities of people who maintain seventh century moral and societal codes.
Via Rhymes With Right comes word that the Boss Obama administration has officially intertwined political correctness into our Constitution. Federal agents took into custody the alleged maker of the anti-Muslim YouTube video which radical Islamist barbarians used as an excuse to go on a rampage and kill (among others) our ambassador to Libya. They did this based on supposed "parole violations" the filmmaker allegedly engaged in.
As Insty says,
WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:
As DE Libertarian's Steve Newton notes, "I have a simple, politically incorrect answer for this (Muslims being offended by a silly video): Tough shit.
UPDATE: Insty provides the following and asks readers for more:
Is this the beginning of Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong?
I, for one, would love to see this in action. This has been the rallying cry of Libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, Randians etc. for half a century. It appears this is in the nascent stage so it's too early to say much about it. Who are the unnamed backers? What is their plan for these cities? I fear this will be one of those things that fizzles as the corruption and graft in Honduras bleeds the investors dry. An intrepid reporter (I'm looking at you Reason) would do well to head down there for this story once it gets going.
That's what you get when an MSNBC "pundit" talks with an intellectually challenged Democrat member of Congress. In this case, Thomas Roberts queries Sheila Jackson-Dunce, er, uh Lee if Voter ID laws are basically a poll tax:
“One issue impacting minority voters is voter ID – early voting restrictions,” Roberts began his question. “In your home state, a federal appeals court tossed out a voter ID law last week saying that it was an ‘unforgiving burden on the poor.’ Governor Rick Perry responded saying, ‘chalk up another victory for fraud.’ With 19 states now involved in this fight, why does the Republican Party – the party of smaller government and less taxes – want to institute more red tape and basically a poll tax on Americans to vote?”
Earth to Roberts: Poll taxes are unconstitutional, you complete cretin. As such,
[E]ach state that has imposed a strict requirement that voters must present photo identification at the polls has also made free identification available to voters that do not have them. Had those states not done so, the question of whether voter identification requirements constituted a poll tax would be valid.
But some loony "progressives" have even argued that using a stamp to register to vote (like I recently had to do because I had moved) is a freakin' "poll tax." Cripes, what's next -- using gas to drive to your polling place? Makes about as much sense as the cost of a f***ing stamp, after all!
The US Supreme Court has ruled favorably in voter ID cases, where the Texas case will end up and be heard next year. Meanwhile, Georgia and Indiana have had voter ID laws on the books since 2006, and Boss Obama won the latter in 2008 -- the first time a Democrat won that state since 1964. B-b-b-b-but how did he do that with that "voter suppression" ID law in place? Good question, as minority voter turnout increased after the Indiana ID was passed!
Go figure. Remember -- the usual racialist rhetoric about the poor and minorities when it comes to having an ID is merely the bigotry of low expectations. After all, you'll have to show ID several times this week at the Democrat National Convention, and there'll be plenty of minorities there, right?
Just like the Al Gore campaign attempted to disqualify military ballots in Florida in 2000, the Boss Obama campaign in 2012 has won the first round in nixing early voting for military personnel in Ohio. (Or, as Boss Obama spells it, "O-I-H-O")
NEWARK, Del., August 10, 2012—In violation of its legal and moral obligation to protect students' First Amendment rights, the University of Delaware (UD) has adopted a prohibition on "bullying" that subjects students to punishment for constitutionally protected speech, including "teasing" or "ridiculing" other students.
"No one likes bullying, but most conduct that could be called bullying on the college level is already illegal. This policy goes much too far by prohibiting constitutionally protected speech," said Samantha Harris, Director of Speech Code Research for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
The policy, which FIRE has named "Speech Code of the Month" for August 2012, defines "bullying" as "[a]ny deliberately hurtful behavior, usually repeated over time, with the desired outcome of frightening, intimidating, excluding or degrading a person." Examples of bullying include "teasing," "ridiculing," and "spreading of rumors." The broad wording of this policy makes it highly vulnerable to abuse, with the potential to silence a great deal of protected speech such as parody and satire (which often ridicule their targets) and political speech.
As FIRE notes, doesn't UD ever learn?
Hans takes on the ridiculous Dept. of Justice hiring scandal. Yours truly gets a mention.
An refreshing editorial from our local paper today which calls out Senator Chris Coons for requesting the Justice Dept. begin tracking hate crimes against Sikhs in the wake of that shooting a week or so ago:
No doubt that particular attack was motivated by hate. The killer followed some twisted logic that parlayed his ignorance and paranoia into murderous acts. As horrible as that crime was, we do not expect the FBI statistics to begin showing a pattern of bias-fueled attacks on members of the Sikh faith. We suspect that except for delusional minds the biggest challenges come from prejudice born of ignorance. When something goes beyond a hostile attitude, state laws typically are well equipped to handle the problem. Adding a special category of “hate crimes” won’t help. Murderers should be prosecuted for being murderers and so on. How do we define a hate crime? Was the shooting of a guard at an anti-same-sex marriage group in Washington, D.C., a hate crime because the shooter opposed that view? A common-sense definition would say yes, but the law says no.
The “hate crime” category is usually added when public outrage over an incident forces politicians into their “do something-do anything” mode. The show of concern is more important than an action resulting from the law.
Quite refreshing, yes. Indeed, the shooter at the Family Research Council cannot be charged with a hate crime, yet the moron who dumped bacon onto a football field where Muslims were soon to gather can? Why is that?
As I've noted previously, I was swayed in my initial opinion of hate crimes in that, like degrees of murder, an additional criminal charge can be added if [the crime] was solely based on hate of a particular group. But also as I've noted, this standard is rarely consistently applied.
The ... misguidedness that are "hate crimes" laws strikes again -- this time in New York where a gathering of Muslims was threatened with ... meat:
Police are investigating an unusual bias crime on Staten Island. Muslims who gathered for prayer to celebrate the end of Ramadan in a city park found bacon scattered on the ground, CBS 2’s John Slattery reported Monday.
With Ramadan ending this past weekend, Muslims celebrated the end of fasting with prayer. On Staten Island an outdoor service was held Sunday on a New Dorp football field, attracting some 1,500 Muslims.
But before most of the faithful arrived for Morning Prayer, it was discovered that someone had scattered a quantity of raw bacon on the field.
As James Taranto says, "We can see why this would be classified as a hateful act, but what exactly is the crime? Littering?" NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said his "Hate Crimes Task Force" has determined that this spreading of bacon is a "bias event." Which should surprise no one since something called a Hate Crimes Task Force sounds like it would be clamoring for something to do every eight-hour work day.
The task force is also investigating "derogatory comments" found on the Muslim group's website. Someone posted a comment “…That he or she was going to do something with a fat pig right at the time of morning prayer.” Man, I wish I could get some of the nasty comments posted here at Colossus investigated if this is the standard! I also think Maneer Awad, executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on Islamic Relations, is out of line when he says “Whether burning crosses or swastikas, a small minority are trying to threaten other people.” Threats? Um, while tossing a dietary no-no onto a football field (a field which, by the way, uses a pigskin to play its game ... go figure) is insensitive and even possibly "hateful," it doesn't rise to the abhorrent standard of cross burning or swastikas -- which actually led to the murder of [many] innocent people. Let's get a little sense of proportion here, please.
The PJ Tatler has obtained documents from the Justice Department detailing efforts to recruit attorneys and staff who are dwarfs or who have “psychiatric disabilities” or “severe intellectual disabilities.” On May 31, 2012, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez issued a directive to affirmatively recruit people with these “targeted disabilities.”
This DOJ policy does not merely involve prohibitions against discrimination, but rather the documents reveal deliberate recruitment efforts to hire as attorneys and staff for the Department of Justice people suffering from psychiatric disorders and intellectual disabilities. Moreover, applicants can “self-identify” their disability by means of the “Standard Form 256, Self Identification Disability.”
Those with “targeted disabilities” may be hired through a “non-competitive” appointment. That means they don’t have to endure the regular civil service competition among applicants, but can be plucked from the stack of resumes and hired immediately instead.
According to the documents, those with these “targeted disabilities” may be hired “before the position is advertised” and even “before the position’s closing date.” Moreover, lawyers with psychiatric disabilities and “severe intellectual” disabilities receive a waiver from the requirement that a new DOJ employee have practiced law for one year before being hired.
Considering some of the decisions to come out of the DOJ these past few years, I'd say they have quite of few of these folks already.
The country is in the very best of hands.
The lead plaintiff against the Pennsylvania voter ID law ... has gotten an ID.
Continuing with the theme highlighted by Hans Bader regarding the Obama administration's pressuring school districts to implement what are, essentially, quotas in school discipline, Heather Mac Donald follows today with a rather lengthy -- and scary -- essay on the topic. Here's something we've heard of before -- and an example of the type of teacher we need more of to speak up against this politically correct garbage:
Aaron Benner, a fifth-grade teacher in St. Paul, Minnesota, scoffs at the notion that minority students are being unfairly targeted for discipline. “Anyone in his right mind knows that these [disciplined] students are extremely disruptive,” he says. Like districts across the county, the St. Paul public school system has been on a mission to lower the black suspension rate, following complaints by local activists and black parents. A highly regarded principal lost his job because his school had “too many” suspensions of black second- and fourth-graders. The school system has sent its staff to $350,000 worth of “cultural-proficiency” training, where they learned to “examine the presence and role of ‘Whiteness.’ ” The district spent another $2 million or so to implement an anti-suspension behavioral-modification program embraced by the Obama administration.
Benner sees the consequences of this anti-discipline push nearly every day in the worsening behavior of students. He overheard a fifth-grade boy tell a girl: “Bitch, I’ll fuck you and suck you.” (“I wanted to throw him against the locker,” Benner recalls.) The boy’s teacher told Benner that she felt powerless to punish the misbehavior. “This will be one of my black men who ends up in prison after raping a woman,” observes Benner. Racist? Many would so characterize the comment. But Benner is black himself—and fed up with the excuses for black misbehavior. He attended one of the district’s cultural-proficiency sessions, where an Asian teacher asked: “How do I help the student who blurts out answers and disrupts the class?” The black facilitator reminded her: “That’s what black culture is”—an answer that echoes the Obama administration’s admonitions to teachers. “I should have said: ‘How many of you shouted out in college?’ ” Benner remarks. “They’re trying to pull one over on us. Black folks are drinking the Kool-Aid; this ‘let-them-clown’ philosophy could have been devised by the KKK.”
Delaware's Christina School District gets a mention, too. It seems it was the target of a federal investigation into "disparate" discipline procedures because it supposedly "failed" to properly distinguish between a white first grader's Cub Scout tool (“a combination of folding fork, knife, and spoon”) and and 11 year-old black girl's box cutter. The girl claimed she had no idea how the box cutter got there. When school officials moved on expulsion, the mom screamed "racism" to the Delaware Human Relations Commission, and the rest is history.
And "history" is what school and classroom order will become very quickly if the current administration gets its way. Delaware already has the highest percentage of school children per capita attending private/parochial schools. Stand by for a national upsurge in such ... or, at least a lot more vociferous demands for charters, vouchers, and school choice.
On the heels of Maryland's educational head-scratcher regarding "proportionate representation" in school discipline, a school district in Florida is now the target of a federal lawsuit based on the same principle:
A federal civil rights complaint filed Tuesday against Flagler County schools alleges black students are suspended and expelled at a rate far higher than white students.
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against Flagler County and four other Florida districts -- Bay, Escambia, Okaloosa and Suwannee.
Black students made up 16 percent of Flagler students but accounted for 31 percent of the in- and out-of-school suspensions in the 2010-2011 school year, the complaint states. Black students accounted for 69 percent of those expelled and 22 percent of those held back a grade.
Flagler Superintendent Janet Valentine said the district will "take it very seriously," but she can't explain the disparities in the discipline rates for white and black students.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Ms. Valentine to ponder if it's because latter are ... more disruptive in school/class? Or, is that just way too anti-politically correct to even suggest?
As Hans Bader noted in his article about Maryland's shenanigans,
This proposed rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by pressuring schools to discipline students based on their race, rather than their individual conduct and the content of their character. That is at odds with court rulings like the federal appeals court ruling in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997), which forbid both racial-balancing, and quotas, in school discipline.
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, “more than 90% of” convicted cocaine traffickers “were black” in 1994, while “93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white.” Crime rates are higher in some ethnic groups than others.
It's a wonder why school districts faced with such nonsense complaints don't stand their ground more often, based on such legal precedent. If there's the documentation to back up the statistics and consistency of applied discipline, there should be little to legally fear. Then again, maybe not: the ever-present (and ludicrous) fear of being labeled "racist" by groups like the SPLC and NAACP (among others) can override all rational thought and considerations.
If groups like the SPLC and NAACP are successful in getting schools to implement "proportionate" discipline statistics, it will lead to chaos, frankly. Teachers and adminstrators will be reluctant to discipline minority students out of fear of being called "racist" and/or "increasing the [minority discipline] figures," whereas white students will be disciplined more harshly for even innocuous infractions.
In addition, the SPLC and NAACP are miffed that there aren't sufficient numbers of blacks in gifted and AP classes. While it's certainly easy enough to increase these figures -- just add more black students to these classes -- the practical effect is too often ignored. As in higher education, the concern that black students are successful is of secondary concern; as long as the enrollment numbers are there, "all is good." So, sure, increasing the black enrollment in AP and gifted classes is easy. But what happens if they're in [way] over their heads? Then we have a widening of the achievement gap, which is yet another academic area which is too often addressed by PC means.
Perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP ought to look at more carefully at this racial disparity (snippet from here) and the role it plays on academic achievement and disruptive behavior.
Two follow-ups to this post from lawyer Hans Bader; the first is Hans' letter to the Maryland State Board of Education about their racial quotas in school discipline, and the second is titled "Obama Administration Aggravates The Minority Achievement Gap, Increases Risk Of School Violence."
Be sure to check them out!
In "another" election that took place in 2008, Republican Norm Coleman took on Democrat Al Franken for a US Senate seat in Minnesota. After winning the initial election and subsequent recount, Coleman then faced a number of legal challenges and further recounts. When all was said and done, Franken emerged the victor -- by a tad more than 300 votes.
Here's, in the words of Independence Day's Dr. Okun, "the really icky part":
There were a lot of irregularities in that race, where a blizzard of magically appearing Franken ballots put the old notion of squeaky-clean Minnesota elections to rest forever. But one specific data point has become inarguable, thanks to the work of authors John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky: the number of outright illegal votes cast by felons in the election far exceeds Franken’s margin of victory.
To date, 1099 felon votes have been identified, and 177 people have actually been convicted of voting illegally, with 66 more awaiting trial. This is all the more remarkable because a simple claim of ignorance is good enough to avoid conviction – as York puts it, “the accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.” Furthermore, it took quite a bit of shoe leather for conservative group Minnesota Majority to find state prosecutors willing to work the vote-fraud cases. (Link)
So, the next time some doltish "progressive" screams "voter suppression" or some such bullsh** when they hear the words "voter ID," just point to this. (Of course, the same buffoons will claim that the felons should have been allowed to vote anyway, so be ready for that goal post move, and don't take the bait.)
An ICE agent faces suspension for ... doing his job -- right here in Delaware:
A veteran Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is facing suspension after he refused to release an illegal immigrant who was not considered a priority target under the Obama Administration’s new immigration enforcement policies, according to documents provided exclusively to Fox News.“They’re punishing law enforcement officers who are just trying to uphold U.S. law,” said Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council. Crane is a union representative acting on the unidentified officer’s behalf.
And, ready for this? "The acting field director sat down with the illegal and explained that he was going to be let go because he was not a 'presidential priority.'"
The ICE agent faces suspension, but the illegal -- who is here illegally and has ten traffic violations -- is free to go.
Welcome to Boss Obama's America, folks.
Yeah, this will work out just dandy: Maryland Board of Education seeks racial quotas in school discipline.
This proposed rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by pressuring schools to discipline students based on their race, rather than their individual conduct and the content of their character. That is at odds with court rulings like the federal appeals court ruling in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997), which forbid both racial-balancing, and quotas, in school discipline.
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, “more than 90% of” convicted cocaine traffickers “were black” in 1994, while “93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white.” Crime rates are higher in some ethnic groups than others.
But the Board of Education seems to have forgotten that reality in proposing a rule that would require school systems to discipline and suspend students in numbers roughly in proportion to their racial percentage of the student body, and require school systems that currently don’t do so to implement plans to eliminate any racially “disproportionate impact” over a three-year period. Thus, it is imposing quotas in all but name.
This is, simply, a recipe for disaster for schools. As Bader notes in the article, teachers and administrators will be skittish to discipline, say, black students but may be more inclined to administer severe discipline to a white or Asian student that would have gotten a black student a mere warning. All in the name of "proportion."
Now it's a Philly city councilman and the NYC City Council Speaker. The former tweeted last night
Hey all you gay hating, gun toting conservative twits, I have to work tomorrow. So, as much as I just love talking to you, good night, GodBless.
Wow. Again, this -- even though roughly half the country believes as the president of Chick-fil-A -- that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Who's the "hater?"
Pennsylvania's voter ID law not as "problematic" as first believed.
Amazing that the Philly Inquirer even bothered to report on this, considering their ever-present ridiculous bias.
Fellow Watcher's Council member GayPatriot chimes in on the issue of Chicago and Boston using the power of government to bully Chick-fil-A just because its owner is a devout Christian who supports traditional marriage:
If you don’t like the fact that Chick-Fil-A’s president is a “devout” Christian who supports traditional marriage, then don’t buy his company’s product, but don’t attempt to impose your views on the rest of us by demanding that cities not grant permits to further franchises.
If cities determine to grant no business licenses to companies because of their management’s controversial politics, then we’d have to demand that cities grant no further licenses to Ben and Jerry’s franchises.
That said, the left-wing politics of that company won’t stop me from stopping by one of their stores on those occasions when I have a craving for a dish of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.
Amen. I'll personally boycott various products if something the company or owner says/does that pisses me off. But I'm not gonna lobby my legislators to ban these products just because I have an issue with their politics. Chick-fil-A employs and serves gay Americans, just like it does all Americans. This, despite its owner's personal belief about traditional marriage. (A belief, by the way, that our own president shared up until a few months ago, and that almost half of all Americans still share.)
And, FWIW, in a debate last night on one of the pundit shows, the person supporting Chicago and Boston kept yammering about "discrimination" and "marriage equality." To that last point, his opponent asked, "Oh, then you support my desire to marry two women?" Flustered, anti-Chick-fil-A person stammered, eventually saying "We're talking about committed couples ..." Really? But why? If "marriage" is not to mean what it has for thousands of years, then why can't a man who wants to marry two women be included under the mantle of "marriage equality?"
As I've opined many times before, gay Americans seem to be obsessed with the term "marriage." Why not concentrate on the 14th Amendment aspect of the issue -- equal protection? It is not a separate but equal situation akin to that with blacks and whites; unlike skin tone, gender actually is a basic human difference. It's like radical feminists "arguing" that there's no difference between the sexes, that it's supposedly a "social construct." Of course, if we eliminated separate sporting events -- women's vs. men's golf, tennis, soccer, basketball, etc. -- there would be no females participating in these sports ... a small consideration such feminists and radical egalitarians always seem to gloss over. And why wouldn't there be any females in these sports? Because of the INHERENT gender differences which make men stronger and faster, that's why.
Get it? Men and women are different. It's a biological fact. "Marriage," as it's been defined for millennia, is between people of two biologically different genders.
Nevertheless, personally I could ultimately care less what two loving adults do, whether it's called "marriage" or whatever. It's none of my business. But it is my business if "progressives" use the coercive force of government to punish people (and businesses) for their beliefs -- especially beliefs which are quite mainstream ... and have been so for time immemorial.
UPDATE 2: It's not OK (if you believe in traditional marriage) to own a business like Chick-fil-A in Boston, but apparently it's just fine and dandy to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a mosque -- a mosque where one of its "spiritual guides" had this to say about homosexuality:
“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”
As Insty notes, "Gay hatred's OK if it's diverse gay hatred.
Via The Hill:
The Obama administration has agreed to let Florida use a national law enforcement database to purge residents suspected of not being U.S. citizens from their voter rolls.
The decision was announced in a letter to state GOP Gov. Rick Scott, who has pushed for Florida to receive access to the Homeland Security (DHS) registry of noncitizen residents, the Associated Press first reported.
The administration had blocked Florida’s request for access to the database for months, but the decision to allow access was spurred by a court decision in another voting-rights case in favor of the state.
As a commenter to the article writes, "That the federal government would even attempt to block ANY state from this information is unconscionable." Well, it's not if you're afraid that common sense voter integrity measures will diminish the number of votes your side will receive in elections. Which, of course, is unethical as all hell, but this is what modern "progressives" have been diminished to.
(Click to enlarge)
Stacey Wilson Betts has filed a lawsuit that claims after taking her daughter to the “Boyfriend” singer’s Portland, Oregon show on July 14, 2010, she suffered ear damage from his screaming fans and from a "heart-shaped aluminum/steel gondola" that Bieber got into.
As a result of singing in it, he "created a wave like effect of screaming by pointing into various sections of the arena. Then enticed the crowd into a frenzy of screams by continuously waving his arms in a quick and upward motion,” says the lawsuit, which was obtained by TMZ.
She said the gondola was responsible for being a "sound conductor” that “permanently damaged both of my ears.”
Betts is seeking $9.23 million in damages for this and she’s not only suing Biber himself, but his record label, the concert promoter and the arena.
Ye gad. The loudest concerts I ever attended were at the old Spectrum in Philly (since torn down). I saw Genesis (1983), Yes (twice -- 1984, 1988) and took my then-young sisters to see Duran Duran (1984). And the Spectrum was loud. My ears would ring for at least a couple days afterward. But guess what? I knew that going in. If it was too loud -- to the point of actually hurting my ears -- get this: I'd leave. This idiot Betts woman could have done precisely the same thing. Period. End of story.
Rhymes with Right fills us in on a little story:
I wrote about it one month ago today -- three voter registration documents for non-existent individuals arrived in my mailbox from a liberal group.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The voter registration form arrived in the mail last month with some key information already filled in: Rosie Charlston's name was complete, as was her Seattle address.
Problem is, Rosie was a black lab who died in 1998.
A group called the Voter Participation Center has touted the distribution of some 5 million registration forms in recent weeks, targeting Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as unmarried women, blacks, Latinos and young adults.
But residents and election administrators around the country also have reported a series of bizarre and questionable mailings addressed to animals, dead people, noncitizens and people already registered to vote.
Brenda Charlston wasn't the only person to get documents for her pet: A Virginia man said similar documents arrived for his dead dog, Mozart, while a woman in the state got forms for her cat, Scampers.
"On a serious note, I think it's tampering with our voting system," Charlston said. "They're fishing for votes: That's how I view it."
RwR has pics of the phony registrations mailed to him. Check 'em out.
Yep, that's what our illustrious attorney general said at the annual NAACP conference in Houston.
In a speech at the annual NAACP conference, in Houston, Holder said many voters would have to travel “great distances” to get a government-issued photo ID and that some would “struggle” to pay for the requisite paperwork. “We call these poll taxes,” Holder said.
I wonder if I can sue for an unconstitutional poll tax for the stamp I used to send in my voter registration form. Or for the gas cost incurred by traveling to my polling place.
But that sarcasm aside, the best part is ... a government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification, as well) was necessary to get in to the NAACP conference!
Gotta love it.
And why not? Boss Obama has refused to cooperate and coordinate with law enforcement in Arizona regarding immigration violations. Boss Obama has refused to deport certain illegal immigrants because, well, he doesn't want to. His Dept. of Justice refuses to prosecute the attorney general after he's held in contempt of Congress. Various liberal mayors and legislators refuse to go after illegal immigrants by declaring their towns "sanctuary cities." The feds suing states for requiring a photo ID to vote, yet refusing to prosecute outright -- and videotaped -- voter intimidation. A big city mayor ignores state law and allows gay "marriages" in his burg.
Why is it "right" when so-called "progressives" refuse to uphold and/or enforce laws, but it's anathema for people like Scott to do same? Obviously, a huge part of it is the mainstream media: The rule of law only matters when it benefits the interests of the Left. It is easily jettisoned when it contradicts those interests.
Keep in mind this isn't merely about legal and political disagreements -- it's the hypocrisy. If Boss Obama and his fellow "progressives" were at least even a little consistent in their application and enforcement of the laws, maybe you wouldn't see actions like this taken by Gov. Scott. Or, for that matter, actions like that taken by states like Arizona.
Despite [at least some of the time] arguing just that before the Supreme Court and despite the Supreme Court majority agreeing with just that:
(h/t to RWR.)
UPDATE: I also like this (via Legal Insurrection):
Greg at Rhymes With Right ponders Rule 44 of the Supreme Court:
Rule 44. Rehearing
1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.
What are the chances of this? "Not very likely," writes Greg. There's been no SCOTUS rehearing since 1969. What's more, a majority of the court needs to agree to rehear the case. Of course, all that would take in this instance would be for the Chief Justice to join the four dissenters ...
... but as a legitimate taxing power of the federal government (which was not argued by Team Obama), not legitimate via the Commerce Clause (which was argued by Team Obama).
Remember: Boss Obama argued vehemently that there was NO tax involved in his healthcare plan:
Hube's prediction: This ruling will benefit Mitt Romney and the GOP in the ultimate scheme of things. The SCOTUS basically said that the feds can only compel you to purchase health insurance by forcing you to pay a tax. And you know how Americans feel about that word -- especially in an economy such as we're facing currently. A pundit on one of the cable networks just read a comment from a GOP legislator that "the clock has been turned back to 2010" -- meaning that we may witness an election turnout this November similar to what we saw then. (And you know what happened then, right?)
UPDATE: The NY Times noted back in March that Team Obama argued that the healthcare penalty wasn't a tax ... except when it was. Again, however, just keep in mind my prediction: The SCOTUS validated the term "tax" in its ruling. Mitt Romney will use that to his advantage for all its worth.
... if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find themselves in hot water.
“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” [lawyer and radio host Mark] Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”
The same goes for states that offer in-state tuition at colleges for illegal aliens, Levin said.
But I'm sure Boss Obama will find some way to thwart these efforts, too, probably in a similar way he's "getting back" at Arizona.
In reaction to the mixed Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the controversial Arizona immigration law, our illustrious boss did the following:
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
To call this "immature" is an understatement. In essence, because Arizona prevailed in court in what was arguably the key part of its disputed law, our boss is saying "Oh yeah? Well how about this?? Nyah nyah!!" And it is a perfect illustration of why Arizona (and other states) have passed laws like the one that went before the high court: Because our boss picks and chooses which laws he likes and dislikes ... and doesn't enforce the latter. Y'know, even though that's what his branch of government is supposed to do.
And it gets better: Though Homeland Security may refuse to answer the phone from Arizona law enforcement, the Dept. of Justice has set up a special hotline "for those who believe their civil rights have been violated by local Arizona law enforcement officers." How 'bout that? As Susan Berry says over at Breitbart.com, "This is the response of Barack Obama, the leader of our nation who is supposed to have vowed to protect and defend us and our borders." Or, as Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in the Arizona case (my emphasis),
Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?...What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that “federal policies” of nonenforcement will leave the states helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration.
The federal government does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the states' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.
President Obama once again shows us all that he is a boss, not a leader. Courtesy of a friend on Facebook, I found the perfect illustration which depicts the differences:
*Sigh* Those in the "Boss" column illustrate our current boss perfectly. Why border states like Arizona or New Mexico would ever consider voting for this boss boggles the mind.
Well, them or the innocent rape victims of pedophile Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky:
In response to a subpoena, NBC News turned over three versions of Bob Costas’ NBC News interview with Sandusky, which aired last November on different NBC shows.
One of those versions, which was broadcast on the ‘Today’ show, contained an erroneous repetition of a key question and answer – about whether Sandusky was sexually attracted to young boys, Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general said on Sunday.
The repetition, Sandusky’s lawyers contend, made it appear to jurors that he was stonewalling.
Unsurprisingly, NBC didn't notice the error, Sandusky's lawyers did.
Obama administration to offer Immunity to younger immigrants. Bypassing Congress. Y'know, the branch of government that makes the laws.
UPDATE: Saw this rather excellent question on Twitter: Why is Obama issuing work permits to people? It's not like they'll be able to find a job in the Obama economy.
Known as a socialist and feminist organization, the party claims that seated urination is more hygienic for men -- the practice decreases the likelihood of puddles and other unwanted residue forming in the stall -- in addition to being better for a man's health by more effectively emptying one's bladder, The Local reported.
Sorry, but I for one refuse to sit on public toilets unless absolutely necessary (meaning, an emergency). If this nonsense happens here, looks like I'll be getting ticketed.
It's gone ahead and sued Florida to stop its "purge" list of non-citizens on voter rolls. Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner says the feds have failed "to provide us the information necessary to identify and remove ineligible voters from Florida’s voter rolls." The Feds accuse the state of violating the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
On the scene reporter Marc Caputo says "So far, there’s less evidence of suppression and more evidence of fraud."
The first one comes from the nearby City of Brotherly Love where its idiot mayor, Michael Nutter, was mulling over what the idiot New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, did -- ban sodas over 16 ounces. But Nutter was doing this ... while cutting the ribbon at Philadelphia’s first Shake Shack, "a fast food restaurant that has gained cult status for its burgers, fries and frozen custards."
You can't make this sh** up, I tell 'ya.
The second story comes by way of my buddy Greg at Rhymes With Right:
A Marine veteran and Academy Award winning film producer said he was barred from speaking to a U.S. government class at a Montana high school because he was “a right-wing conservative.”
Gerald Molen, who won an Oscar for co-producing Schindler’s List, had been invited to speak to a class of seniors at Ronan High School in Montana. He’s also one of the few conservatives working in Hollywood and is currently making a documentary based on Dinesh D’Souza’s book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.
Molen, who is a popular motivational speaker, said his speech was going to be apolitical. He had planned on reminding students of their individual greatness and opportunities for the future.
But when he showed up at the high school — about 90-minutes from his home in Bigfork, Mont. – the principal informed Molen that he would not be allowed to address students because he was a “right-wing conservative.” He was told that there had been some calls to the school complaining about the planned speech.
“He said some callers didn’t want kids exposed to that, despite not knowing what my message would be,” he told the Hollywood Reporter."
Got that? They didn't even know what Molen was going to talk about -- and they still wanted him banned.
Greg wants the principal and any district administrator who advised him to nix Molen fired. Be sure to stop over there and find out why.
A National Guardsman who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo has sued a landlady for refusing to rent to him ... because his service is at odds with her peace activism.
A National Guardsman who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay has sued a woman he tried to rent from, after she told him his war service and her peace activism presented a “conflict of interests” and suggested he seek housing elsewhere — though the Dorchester landlady insists his veteran status “would not impede his chances to rent from us.”
Sgt. Joel Morgan, 29, said the two-bedroom $1,220-a-month Savin Hill apartment that property owner Janice Roberts, 63, showed him in April was perfect. But he claims Roberts told him in an April 9 voicemail that renting to him would be a conflict, saying, “We are very adamant about our beliefs."
“It just is not going to be comfortable for us without a doubt. It probably would be better for you to look for a place that is a little bit less politically active and controversial,” Roberts told Morgan, according to his complaint. The voicemail was played for the Herald during an interview with Morgan last week at the Boston office of his lawyer, Joseph L. Sulman.
Roberts counters that Morgan took a rental application but never returned it, and that she had around 30 people also interested in the apartment. Morgan says he didn't return the app after receiving Roberts' voicemail.
On matters such as this, I'm quite the libertarian -- I believe a property owner should be able to rent to whomever he/she pleases. So, ultimately, I side with Roberts on this one. It's her property, after all. However, as noted in this post's title, what if Roberts had refused to rent to ... a minority? Anyone else think this would be plastered over the front pages and heard endlessly on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc.? But ... in this case, she's a peace activist! Her motives are pure!
... but, as usual, it's up to the New Media to toss some cold water reality on the situation. Greg Pollowitz, in this case:
Just to follow up on my post yesterday on Florida cleaning up its voter rolls, MSDNC’s Martin Bashir goes and proves my point with his rant yesterday, “Why is the Sunshine State in the midst of a purge that even Josef Stalin would admire?”
Please, please if you are truly interested in this story, set a Google News Alert for Marc Caputo of the Miami Herald and start following his pieces on the issue. Here’s a recent article by Caputo on what’s going on. Hint, it’s not Stalinism.
Florida has essentially been begging the Dept. of Homeland Security to assist it with efforts to ID non-citizens who may be on the state's voting rolls. Still, DHS refuses. Why? The state is being a lot more diligent than it was in 2000 when it did more-or-less blanket purges of its voter rolls that contained (or may have contained) convicted felons. So, why won't DHS cooperate -- especially when the Dept. of Justice is now threatening the state about its current actions?
For me, this belongs as an entry to Overlawyered.com (to whom I sent a tip, by the way): Some enterprising attorney -- with a very catchy name, too: "Skippy" Weinstein -- thinks the sender of some text messages should held culpable for an auto accident that the recipient of the texts got into:
David and Linda Kubert of Dover, N.J., initially sued Kyle Best of Wharton, N.J., after he veered head on into them on Sept. 21, 2009, as they rode their motorcycle. Each lost a leg in the wreck, and Best pleaded guilty earlier this year to using a hand-held cellphone while driving, careless driving and failure to maintain a lane in Montville (N.J.) Municipal Court.
But the Kuberts' lawyer, Stephen "Skippy" Weinstein, amended his lawsuit to include Shannon Colonna, then 19, as someone who aided in Best's negligence even though she wasn't in the vehicle.
Cell phone records revealed during the suit's discovery process show the pair exchanged more than two dozen texts during the day but stayed off the phone for about five hours while Best worked, Weinstein said.
Colonna said she essentially wasn't certain if Best was driving or not. Her attorney says "The sender of the text has the right to assume the recipient will read it at a safe time," and that "It's not fair. It's not reasonable. Shannon Colonna has no way to control when Kyle Best is going to read that message."
I totally agree with Colonna's lawyer. If "Skippy" succeeds in his novel theory (they used that term on a radio news report this morning), will this mean that any text sent by someone will have to include the warning "Do not read this if you are driving"? Still, that wouldn't have prevented this accident as Best smacked into motorcyclists by merely checking who had sent the text message, not by reading it. To wit: Isn't it incumbent upon the recipient of a text to exercise good judgment as to when to read it? If I get a text while driving, I never check to see who sent it let alone read it, sometimes only checking the sender while at a red light (and never reading the message).
UPDATE: The aforementioned Overlawyered.com notes that today the judge in the case has dismissed "Skippy's" contention that Colonna should be liable for damages.
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.
“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”
Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
Boy, what a class act. But the way the Left works, you can bet that Savage and his acolytes will try to turn this around and make those who were offended and/or left out to be the bullies -- because they dared to offend a homosexual.
Then we have a new video by MoveOn.org which attempts to make using the term "illegal immigrant" ... a hate crime. Suggested alternatives are the usual "undocumented worker," blah blah blah, but I think the best I heard was last night on a pundit show: "potential tax payer." The host was beside himself with unbelieving hilarity, asking the idiot who uttered this phrase something like, "What should we now call thieves and murderers? 'Potential law-abiding citizens??'"
This is the Age of Obama, where using actual, factual terminology is not only wrong, it may soon land you in jail.
We learn from the Washington Post that Democrats in Congress have a "fallback" plan in case the US Supreme Court upholds the Arizona immigration law. Included in that plan are the following:
NY Democrat Senator Chuckie Schumer said,
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended.”
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
'Ya gotta love this, folks. As Mark Krikorian notes,
So, for open-borders legislators, running to the courthouse is Plan A, while actually going through the deliberative process of legislating is Plan B. Because, you know, they might lose if it were put to a vote, and there’s no sense in taking that chance if you don’t have to. That pretty much sums up the governing philosophy of the Left: Only when all else fails should you try democracy.
And, of course, if Schumer and his idiot pals had done their job long ago, Arizona might not have felt compelled to act on its own behalf.
Meanwhile, Congressional Dems and our illustrious Justice Dept. could care less about so-called "sanctuary cities" which outright ignore federal immigration laws by providing a safe haven for illegal immigrants!
A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”
”There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
Right. Arizona doing what the feds essentially REFUSE to do is "actively interfering." In other words, the state is "actively interfering" in ... nothing. And the author of the actual law that requires -- requires -- [sanctuary] states and localities to cooperate with the feds when it comes to immigration laws says Eric Holder and the administration are full of it:
For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law who fail to comply with the law is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”
This is your modern Democrat Party, folks. Go after states/localities that actually enforce the law, and look the other way at states/localities that piss on same. And if the highest court in the land upholds the rights of a state to enforce federal immigration law, our Democrats in Congress will thwart the state by ... passing more laws. Which, again, Democrats will only enforce when they want to. And they won't want to in those sanctuary cities, just like they don't approve of voter ID laws. Because scamming a few illegal votes in the upcoming elections just might make the difference between victory and defeat.
Catholic schools in Ontario, Canada will no longer be permitted to teach Catholic doctrine regarding to homosexuality. Glenn Murray, an openly gay member of Provincial Parliament, rebuked Ontario’s Catholic bishops for refusing to launch “gay clubs” in Catholic schools.
“I have to say to the bishops: ‘You’re not allowed to do that anymore,’” said Mr. Murray, who serves as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.
As part of an “anti-bullying” effort, Ontario’s New Democratic Party intends to force the Catholic Church into naming clubs in its schools “gay-straight alliances.” Catholic bishops and over 2,000 concerned parents and pro-family advocates have protested the bill and called for its defeat.
Why not just ban religion outright, then? Or, like any communist country that has ever existed, make the state the official religion.
... here's a few things to keep in mind:
Everyone stay tuned ... as I know you will.
The special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin shooting has decided not to take the case to the grand jury:
In Florida, the decision on whether to indict someone in capital cases must be made by a grand jury. In all lesser cases the decision to file charges are routinely made by prosecutors. But in highly controversial or difficult cases, prosecutors often defer to a grand jury, leaving the politically charged decision to a panel of citizens.
[Special Prosecutor Angela] Corey’s office pointed out that the decision not to take the case to a grand jury should not be taken as an indication of which way she’s going to decide.
“The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case,” her office said in a release.
I think, based on this initial report, this is a terrible idea. As it notes in the highlighted text above, why not leave it up to a panel of citizens to decide? The case already has an aura of political shenanigans; won't this decision just add to that? The case had been scheduled for a grand jury tomorrow by the previous prosecutor; now, Corey will decide alone whether to file charges against George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman apparently passed a lie detector test the night of the Trayvon Martin shooting:
George Zimmerman’s defense team is growing, suggesting that he’s planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.
Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?
They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.
A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual’s voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.
This technology is not unique to Sanford. The National Institute for Truth Verification, a manufacturer of the technology, claims that over 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies use their product. They also claim to have trained U.S. Military personnel.
Zimmerman apparently "came out clean," but a study by the Justice Dept. says this type of test is really "no better than flipping a coin."
No word yet on whether Zimmerman will appear on the Maury Show to see if he can pass his lie detector test ..
1) There already is an investigation underway. Try keeping up on current events, eh?
2) High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, the one behind on current events, is South African. Considering her own country's outrageous crime rate, perhaps she ought to get off her high horse and worry a little more about that.
Check out the video from Pajamas Media exposing the blatant, brazen hypocrisy of groups like the Center for American Progress regarding having a photo ID in order to vote:
I love this -- if these groups honestly believe that minorities and the elderly are the most likely not to possess a photo ID, then how can these said groups help those "vulnerable" individuals ... if those "oppressed" cannot even get into the building to see them??
And that is: We haven't yet totally succumbed to the absolute and preposterous inanity that is identity political correctness.
Example #1: In the UK, a country without a First Amendment, mind you, if you utter something "offensive," you can be fined ... and even jailed. Granted, a lot of what people have said there is offensive -- to me, at least -- but who is to judge?? Much like hate crimes law here in the US, these anti-free speech measures are selectively enforced, and I bet you can pretty much figure out just which groups benefit most. As John O'Sullivan writes, in the UK "it sometimes seems that the police are never too busy to investigate a Christian soapbox orator for quouting Deuteronomy but always too busy to chase a burglar or mugger before he gets too far away."
Example #2: In Canada, a guy who punched a bus driver in the face leaving him requiring plastic surgery was spared a serious sentence ... because he is part Native American:
Instead, citing Mr. Louie’s aboriginal ancestry as one of several mitigating factors, Provincial Court Judge Karen Walker handed the 22-year-old an 18-month conditional sentence to be served at a rehab residence, 200 hours of community service and two years probation. The Crown had urged a prison sentence of nine to 12 months.
In pronouncing sentence, Judge Walker acknowledged the severity of Mr. Louie’s sucker punch against a vulnerable victim, who was simply doing his job. But she said the Criminal Code requires that “all available sanctions” be considered before sending an aboriginal offender to jail. The section was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Circumstances of aboriginals in Canada, given their traumatic history, are different from non-aboriginal offenders, Judge Walker said, citing previous court rulings. While Mr. Louie, with an aboriginal mother and father of Russian ancestry, does not live in a native community, he has been afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome and psychological stress all his life, the judge told the court. “They were not of his making.”
But no worries: the judge "warned him that any breach of her strict conditions, including a ban on drugs and alcohol, would likely send him to prison. (My emphasis.) But I'm sure some other PC "extenuating circumstances" will pop up enabling her to remain lenient.
The shooter of Trayvon Martin, "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman, was a "Jekyll and Hyde" sort of character says a former co-worker:
A report on Friday contrasts the (Zimmerman's) brother’s story, citing one of Zimmerman’s co-workers. While usually “cool,” he said, Zimmerman was like “Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”
He had a temper and he became a liability. One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.
But, the source says, “Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never.”
Never? After he threw a drunk woman which twisted her ankle? Hmm ...
The story continues ...
Philly.com has already -- and predictably -- opined on the Trayvon Martin case, thus opening the way for the expected dopey letter writers. First up is Scott Washburn of Philly who writes
If I understand the Florida "stand your ground" law correctly, if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, he would have been perfectly justified in shooting George Zimmerman, just as Zimmerman claims to have been justified in shooting Martin ("Debating 'castle' doctrine," Tuesday). Martin's life obviously was in danger.
Well, you don't understand the law correctly, Scott. Martin would have a lot less of a justification for firing on Zimmerman than the reverse. Consider the relevant portions of the Florida law:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Zimmerman merely following Martin hardly rises to the level of "reasonably believing" in "imminent death or great bodily harm." On the other hand, if current reports are accurate in that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, Zimmerman's claims of self defense may have merit -- based on the above ... and on this section:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Even if Zimmerman is considered the "aggressor" by his initial pursuit of Martin ("Initially provokes the use of force against himself"), there's that highlighted exception. Reports say that Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit of Martin and was returning to his truck. It is here that Martin allegedly attacked him. Part "a" above would appear to be what allows the action Zimmerman ultimately took -- shooting Martin because Martin was beating the snot out of him.
Next, Anthony J. Frascino of Swedesboro (NJ) writes:
African Americans must realize the sad truth. Old white men are passing draconian gun laws to protect their own. Florida adopted an NRA-backed gun law called "stand your ground" to make it easier for citizens to kill you if you're perceived as a threat to their survival. To many of these folks, any black face is intimidating. So any vigilante confronting you can murder you, even if you get the upper hand and don't possess a firearm.
Hmm. Usually when one says "draconian gun laws" he means gun control. Frascino seems to be saying that laws like "Stand Your Ground" are racist because it gives "old white men" an excuse to kill black people. Which is actually pretty hilarious since the aforementioned gun control actually has racist roots. "Stand your ground" applies to everyone, whereas gun control laws historically only benefitted the well-off and whites, and currently only benefit the lawless. Just take a gander at how "great" gun control laws work in big inner cities now. Whom do they hurt most?
As for the rest of Frascino's nonsense, I direct him to the appropriate sections of the Florida law noted above in response to the first letter writer.
As I noted in my post about the Trayvon Martin case yesterday, some facts are not in dispute. The biggest of these is that Trayvon's killer, George Zimmerman, pursued Martin as he was walking through the neighborhood. Lowry writes:
Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him from behind, and he fired in self-defense. But while he was on the line with 911, Zimmerman was the one chasing Martin. At the same time, Martin talked on his cellphone to his girlfriend, complaining of a man watching him. She told him to run away, which he apparently did during the interval Zimmerman was on with 911. The girlfriend claims she heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" before the call went dead.
The tape of another 911 call from a neighbor has yells of "help" in the background before the gunshot. We may never know what exactly happened in the altercation. We do know this: Through stupendous errors in judgment, Zimmerman brought about an utterly unnecessary confrontation and then — in the most favorable interpretation of the facts for him — shot Martin when he began to lose a fistfight to him.
The "self-defense" defense shouldn't apply because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Martin did not know who Zimmerman was. If a stranger was running after you, what would you do -- especially if he caught you? Fight back? Most probably.
As for agreeing with Al Sharpton, let Lowry explain it:
What is true of the stopped clock is also true of the perpetually aggrieved, shamelessly exploitative publicity hound: Through sheer chance, he occasionally will be right. The Trayvon Martin case appears to be one of those instances for Al Sharpton.
Sharpton shouldn't be lauded at all for his current stance on the Martin matter. As I also noted in yesterday's post, Al's racial huckster baggage/history invites suspicion from the outset, and this makes it much more difficult for people to take him (and others, like Jesse Jackson) seriously when they do have a legitimate gripe.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's fairly clear to me Zimmerman should be charged with something, at least perhaps 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter. And, once again as I noted yesterday, it's all fine and good to point out how ridiculous the mainstream media is being during this whole sordid affair; however, people aren't doing anyone any good by digging up nuggets that show Trayvon somehow wasn't a "model citizen," etc. The kid was killed because the neighborhood watch guy refused to listen to law enforcement, and initiated a confrontation which never should have happened.
As you would expect, the media has been covering this sad story of a 17 year-old Florida teenager who was followed, and then shot by, a neighborhood watch "supervisor." There are myriad aspects to the case -- involving the actual incident and the media coverage of it.
--- Based on the facts we know at present, it appears that the neighborhood watch guy, one George Zimmerman, acted inappropriately. He not only violated the tenets of his Neighborhood Watch manual (which states, “it should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles”), but also the instructions of the 911 operator whom he called. Martin is also a habitual caller to 911, having contacted them 46 times in the last fifteen months.
--- The police acted questionably in the case initially. They failed to administer a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman. They also did not run a background check on him. And, they missed an apparent racial epithet uttered under Zimmerman's breath during the 911 call. Philly's Michael Smerconish on WPHT 1210 AM a few days ago played that portion of the call and it indeed does seem like Zimmerman says "f***ing coon" as he's chasing Martin. Smerconish had to filter the sound and up the volume substantially for it to be heard; nevertheless, if he could do it, the cops couldn't?? But the reason Zimmerman may have remained free that fateful day is that a witness has stated that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was beating the crap out of him. But ... if Zimmerman had followed the 911 operator's instructions at the onset, there would have been no confrontation in the first place, right?
--- The left-leaning media predictably has dissected the race aspect of all this immeasurably. This is not to say there isn't such an aspect, of course; what it does, though -- for them, at least -- is confirm everything they believe about race and how it affects life in these United States. Which, of course, is mostly so much nonsense. We now see articles like this asking if black males wearing hoodies is a "recipe for disaster." (Geraldo Rivera takes a slightly different tack in that hoodies are associated with "gangsta" life and do indeed invite suspicion.) What this fails to note is 1) how many other cases are out there like the Martin-Zimmerman case (wouldn't we have heard about them, especially given the quick furor over this one?), and 2) even noted civil rights individuals like Jesse Jackson have come right out and stated that he fears a group of black men walking down the street. What could possibly give Jackson that trepidation?
--- Why has the mainstream media been referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic?" Would they have referred to him thusly if his last name was "Rodríguez?" What if he was a black Hispanic? Either this is to further sensationalize the racial angle of the case, or the media is obtuse in thinking that someone with the last name "Zimmerman" could not possibly be Latino.
--- The conservative media has been reporting this fairly; however, too many commenters at various right-leaning news sites and blogs are making ridiculous points and statements which belittle the tragedy of this case. I read one yesterday at The Blaze which questioned why the media constantly uses images of Trayvon which show him to be quite a bit younger than 17 ... as if all 17 year-olds "look older." While this may be the case (these photos of Martin have since surfaced; he still doesn't look much older than in the photos the MSM have used, though these are certainly more "sinister"), ultimately, as one conservative commenter rebutted, such complaints are unproductive. He said he's against fake racism complaints and racial huckstery as much as the next guy, but when there's a fairly clear cut case of wrong, people have to be willing to say that's what it is.
--- But, then again, the main media figure in all this now is Al Sharpton. Not only is Sharpton one of most racially polarizing figures in the country, he was the ringleader of one of the biggest racial hoaxes of all-time -- the Tawana Brawley case. Once he's involved, immediately [mostly white] suspicion ensues. Sharpton's involvement, among others', brings to light the issue of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Aside from the Brawley (and other) hoaxes, with Barack Obama's election in 2008 accusations of racism have become so commonplace that it's causing people to yawn and say "Yeah, right." Then there's Louis Farrakhan chiming in and the Black Panthers have now offered a bounty on Zimmerman.
--- Ace [rightly] points out that the Duke lacrosse team scandal, among other things, shouldn't be forgotten.
Mark Steyn's article at The Corner a couple days back dealing with how the media reacts to [obvious] radical Islamic terror actions can be similarly applied to the Martin case ... and incidents of politically-oriented violence in general. Stage One involves blaming right wing conservative "extremists." Conservative lawmakers in Florida were quickly culpable for the state's "stand your ground" law, as was the NRA for supporting such laws. Others, like MSNBC's Karen Finney, made connections to voter ID laws and blamed Rush Limbaugh for the shooting. The same network's Mika Brzezinski also blamed Limbaugh.
Stage Two would work in the opposite manner of Steyn's thesis. With Islamic terrorists, the media quickly goes into "it's a lone wolf" mode, wanting to downplay the radical Islamist angle. With the Martin case, George Zimmerman is not just one overzealous individual with a wannabe cop fetish. The "real" issue is continued, systemic racism which is still "endemic" in contemporary America.
Steyn then posits that Stage Three has the media grudgingly admitting that it really wasn't a "lone wolf" scenario, but radical Islam still has nothing to do with a terrorist incident. In the Martin case, the elite media and its "progressive" allies generate criticism towards those whom they feel traditionally downplay or ignore the "epidemic" of racism in America which, of course, is the "actual" culprit behind Trayvon Martin's death. The liberal Daily Beast blasted Fox News for its "delay" in covering the story. Buzzfeed produced a graphic which supposedly depicts Fox only airing one story on the Martin through March 19 ... despite the fact that up until that point the story wasn't very widespread at all. The underlying message to these criticisms is, of course, that Fox News is "anti-black" and/or "racist." It's sort of understandable that these "progressive" outlets have to resort to this type of nonsense, because at present no major right-leaning media outlet has in any way defended Zimmerman or his actions. That's what really grates at them.
Lastly, there's Stage Four -- the "backlash that never happens." With reporting on radical Islam, it's the fear that Muslim communities will suffer retribution from the community-at-large after a terrorist attack. With the Martin case, you won't hear about media fears of a [black] backlash against the white (or should I say "white Hispanic") community.
I'd offer the advice to allow the authorities (state and federal) to do their jobs and [hopefully] bring about the right -- and just -- remedy. But I doubt that will make much of a difference.
UPDATE 2: A commenter at Legal Insurrection points out that the second of the more "sinister" Martin photos noted in the fifth bullet point paragraph above was referenced on its original Twitter posting as not being Trayvon. (The Twitter photo is now listed as "unavailable.")
UPDATE 3: It seems Zimmerman did not call 911 forty-six times in fifteen months. He called 46 times since 2004. Big difference, that.
UPDATE 4: Leonard Pitts is here to remind us that George Zimmerman is white, dammit. Just don't try to point out that Barack Obama is, though. Or something.
UPDATE 5: Heather Mac Donald has an excellent column on the case today.
The Los Angeles Police Department will soon start ignoring California state law, which requires police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers for 30 days. The majority of unlicensed motorists in Los Angeles are immigrants who are in the country illegally and have low-income jobs. The LAPD says the state's impound law is unfair because it limits their ability to get to their jobs and imposes a steep fine to get their car back.
As long as drivers can produce some form of I.D., proof of insurance and vehicle registration, they'll be allowed to keep their car. Police Chief Charlie Beck insists that it's simply leveling the playing field.
"It's about fairness. It's about equal application of the law," Beck told a Los Angeles TV station earlier this month.
Now, try to reconcile those two statements. The majority of unlicensed motorists are are here illegally, but impounding their cars because of that isn't an "equal application of the law."
Right. Got it.
... it'd be hard to remember. This time, at the behest of the NAACP, the UN is going to investigate -- wait for it -- US voter ID laws.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.
Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.
Yep. Countries like Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea.
Y'know, Mitt Romney would be a fool not to bang on this issue. 70-some percent of the American public supports voter ID, and a big reason for this is because folks just don't see the big deal -- especially when you need to show ID for so many other damn things like buying alcohol, getting a prescription filled, entering the Dept. of Justice, and getting on a plane. The latter being what the members of the NAACP will have to do when they jet off to Geneva.
... I'm gonna scream "BIGOTS!!!"
He did the job the old media refused -- and refuses -- to do. Like thoroughly vet our president. Below is a video which Obama advisor Charles Ogletree outright admits he hid from the public back in 2008. Why did he hide it? Because it shows Obama telling everyone to embrace the words of Professor Derek Bell, a far-left radical who helped invent "Critical Race Theory" (discussed here at Colossus previously), an idea so out-there even leftist judges won't give it any weight.
Bell also wrote The Space Traders, a science fiction story where aliens promise the United States enough gold to solve all of its monetary problems ... if only the country gives them all its black citizens. The US does just this (of course) and the story has a not-so-subtle anti-Semitic message as well. This story was turned into a TV drama in the early 90s. It's hard not to notice in this drama how the head alien looks and talks just like Ronald Reagan, not to mention the ridiculous caricatures that are the [GOP] US president and his advisers in this scene.
Bell is just like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright but with greater academic cred. And our president embraced him, literally. Can Obama say that, like he did about Wright, that he "didn't hear anything" vitriolic from Bell? He states outright that we should "open our hearts and minds" to Bell's words.
No wonder Ogletree had to hide that tape.
And from Hot Air, watch as CNN's Soledad O'Brien (among others) demonstrates perfectly why Breitbart's efforts are needed.
Y'see, if O'Brien had her way, none of this would have ever come out (well, it didn't until Breitbart got into the mix) because she has determined that it is all "no big deal." She has. She doesn't want to leave it up to you to determine that for yourself. And need I mention, this is the same mainstream media that sent an army of reporters to sift through Sarah Palin's e-mails, and determined that a rock on a hunting ground -- rented by former prez candidate Rick Perry -- that had a racial epithet on it was a major [negative] story against the former TX governor. Among many other examples.
Personally, I think a lot of them are obnoxious as hell ... but that isn't a crime in these United States. Unfortunately, a Pennsylvania judge doesn't see it that way:
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death.
This idiot judge called Mr. Perce a "dufus" for his actions, and offered long-winded soliloquies about what it means to be a Muslim.
I don't care what it means to be a Muslim. Or any other religion or culture. The First Amendment clearly protects what Mr. Perce did -- and not what the defendant did. Why even have a First Amendment if it only "protects" speech that everybody has no issue with? It's supposed to protect speech that people may dislike. This Judge Martin (obviously a believer like Justice Ginsburg, eh?) should be impeached ASAP.
Local affilliate report on the incident:
Via Newsarama. Some I knew about, some I didn't -- like #10's regarding The Walking Dead's Robert Kirkman. The one I'm probably most sympathetic to is #2: Jack Kirby vs. Marvel. The "King" created your major characters, Marvel. And he even plotted major storylines (hear that, Stan Lee?). Get a grip.
Oh, that's right -- too busy worried about spontaneous student-led prayers and defending the loafers in the Occupy movement. But no word regarding where they are in this:
A Colorado high school student quit the school choir after an Islamic song containing the lyric “there is no other truth except Allah” found its way into the chorus.
James Harper, a senior at Grand Junction High School in Grand Junction, put his objection to singing “Zikr,” a song written by Indian composer A.R. Rahman, in an email to Mesa County School District 51 officials.
“I don’t want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don’t feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song,” Harper told KREX-TV. “This is worshipping another God, and even worshipping another prophet … I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth.”
He's certainly correct about that last part!
Hey, I agree with the district that a religious theme in songs is perfectly fine (the Christmas and Hanukkah season, for example); however, lyrics that promote the supposed truth of one religion over another certainly appear to be crossing the line. And, as noted, it should be something so-called "progressive" organizations should be all over like flies on you-know-what. So ... why aren't they?
I know. It's the 'ol "What the hell do we do when two competing politically correct idelogies conflict?" scenario. First , there's the obvious church vs. state issue, but then there's the PC promotion/protection of an "aggrieved" minority ingrained in their dogma which is combatting the first "progressive" tenet. What to do??
UPDATE: One important aspect of this story that is important (and one which I perhaps glossed over too much) is that the choir in question is an after-school activity. This makes quite a bit of difference in contrast to a choir class that would take place during the school day. Being an after-school activity is purely voluntary, and indeed allows for more leeway when it comes to the use of religiously themed songs and lessons. So, not only does Harper have the absolute right to NOT join this choir, the choir does have more latitude in utilizing religious material. This doesn't change my main assertion that it is surprising groups like the ACLU haven't joined the fray on this when it has done so in (perhaps) less controversial instances. Like here. Or here.
A family in the Acton-Boxborough School District near Boston is suing said district to get the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance:
The Plaintiffs are named as Jane and John Doe out of concern for what they call “public hostility.” Their children are listed as ages 13, 11, and 9.
David Niose, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, describes the family as atheists and humanists. They say the children don’t have a problem reciting the pledge [sic], just the phrase, “under God.”
Niose told FOX 25’s Sharman Sacchetti, “Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God. That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
Since it was decided LONG ago that NO ONE is required to recite the Pledge, Mr. and Mrs. Doe aren't really concerned for the kids' "marginalization." They want to make a point, such that it is. And with cash-strapped school districts (Acton-Boxborough has alerady spent $10K in legal fees on this) scraping for every penny these days, many will simply settle -- ie, cave in -- when idiots like these parents bring suit.
Here's my very simple question: If the children "don't have a problem reciting the Pledge," then why don't they just omit the words "under God" when saying it? Who would know? Kids barely mumble the Pledge at the beginning of the day anyway; it's not as if anyone would notice. Superintendent Stephen Mills says
“This business that they’re marginalizing students. They’re absolutely no recriminations; no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge or in this particular case the words ‘under God.’”
Yep. And attorney Eric Rassbach adds, “They’re not asking for the right to opt out. They have that right. They admit that they’re trying to get other people to shut up.”
Via Hans Bader: "Liberal Justices Complain About American Law Being Too Protective of Civil Liberties and Colorblindness." In it, we read that some of our "progressive" justices aren't very keen on the document they're sworn to uphold:
When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.” (Link)
What makes South Africa's constitution, for example, so admirable to Ginsburg? Let's see:
South Africans have the right to "make decisions concerning reproduction," "form a political party," or "form and join a trade union."
The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
It also stipulates that citizens have the right to housing and adequate healthcare.
As you can see, the above is a statist's wet dream come true. South Africa's constitution contains so-called "positive rights" -- rights that "affirmatively provide socio-economic necessities." Human rights groups divide rights into three "generations," the second and third of which are the so-called "positive" ones:
First generation rights are political and civil, and are usually negative rights. Second generation rights involve the government's socio-economic obligations, and are frequently positive rights. Finally, third generation rights are exemplified by the right to a clean and healthy environment, and are commonly called "green" rights.
I'm fascinated as to how governments would be obligated to provide -- and that's what it is, after all -- these rights. Can people sue if they've lost their home and there's no shelter immediately available? The SA constitution's Section 10 protects "human dignity;" is it "dignified" to live in a small phone booth-sized room which is a government-provided "positive right?" Who gets to determine what is "dignified?" If you're Ginsburg and those who constructed the SA constitution, it's the government -- specifically the courts. The government can merely insist such a situation is "dignified," despite it obviously not being so, so you can see the inherent contradictions that occur when modern "progressives" get to devise a foundational legal document. In addition,
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights addresses the "freedom and security of the person." This section specifically bans torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, general violence, detention without trial, and deprivation of freedom without just cause.
Nevertheless, despite a recent drop in some areas of crime, South Africa remains one of the most violent countries on the planet. Who do people sue in court for the government's failure to enforce the ban on "general violence?"
Again, the courts do. Consider: "The Court's overall responsibility is to determine whether the infringement on the right is proportional to the resulting societal benefit." You can see how such power can be infinitely greater in the hands of such jurists as opposed to those here in the US. The US Constitution's First Amendment for example, virtually unique among legal concepts worldwide, could be vastly misapplied were it in the hands of SA judges. SA judges, like many jurists in other countries, are permitted to use precedents from other countries to justify their decisions. So, since so-called "hate speech" is illegal in many countries, SA-style judges could use these international legal bases to essentially dismantle our free speech rights. Remember -- is "the infringement on the right proportional to the resulting societal benefit?" You can bet that SA-style judges would rule "no;" in other words, the societal benefit, in their minds, would be greater if "hate speech" were disallowed. Whereas, of course, many others would -- rightly, in my opinion -- claim that the suppression of speech is a greater negative to society than a benefit, especially since the question is, as always, "who gets to decide what's 'hateful?'" Do we want our courts continually to decide such matters for us? An even bigger question is, how is this the essence of freedom?? Mark Steyn puts it thusly:
The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.
Then there's the UK forbidding a group to advertise that God can heal illnesses. Obviously, for Sweden, Canada and the UK (and the list is endless, really), the infringement on those individual rights wasn't "proportional" to the resulting "societal benefit." But, again, it's the societal benefit that "progressives" believe in. And now, this philosophy is really beginning to assert itself here in the US: The Obama administration has mandated that religious-oriented employers (not actual churches or institutions) provide contraception, birth control and drugs that may assist abortion. This is almost unprecedented in its legal audacity, not to mention that it has actually served to unite, however briefly, many people on both sides of the political aisle.
Nevertheless, witness: Separation of church and state -- for "progressives" -- is of paramount import ... unless THEY deem it otherwise. A kid bringing a Bible to public school runs counter to the "societal benefit," but forcing people to act completely contrary to their conscience is as well. Go figure.
Our system of government -- our Constitution -- indeed may not be ideal, or the "best," for other countries. If a country doesn't have a tradition of democratic principles, it'd be difficult to see it formally incorporate such a model. But it's distressing to see one of our Supreme Court justices demean our founding document's greatness by not pointing out its unique -- and most important -- emphasis on individual liberties. For, if these are not protected, then eventually -- inexorably -- even those "positive rights" that the "progressives" adore will vanish ... all at the whim of The State.
The teenagers arrested after an attack on a cabdriver and his 21-year-old passenger in Center City last weekend, during which racial epithets were shouted, will not be charged with committing hate crimes, the District Attorney's Office said Thursday.
"We have to be able to prove that race was the motivator for the crime," said Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office. "Just because epithets were said during the crime doesn't mean it was the reason for the crime."
The teens were charged with "assault, conspiracy, and related charges." Was robbery and/or theft part of the "related charges?" If not, then why were the victims attacked? Sure seems part of the reason is because they were the wrong skin color. I'm just waiting for a brave state legislator to sponsor a non-binding resolution dubbing hate crimes laws "the most useless and political of laws ever."
Even though our current Justice Dept. is fighting against state measures that require showing a photo ID when voting (because, you know, such measures "discriminate" against the poor, minorities, and the elderly), back in 2005 a commission led by one Jimmy Carter -- that's right, the former president -- advocated voter ID laws.
The commission, also co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, called voter identification one of “five pillars” that would “build confidence” in the integrity of federal elections. Only three of the 21 commission members voted against requiring photo identification of voters.
Far from seeing a photo ID requirement as a negative, the commission said it could become a path to even greater access to the ballot.
“To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever,” the executive summary of the commission’s report states. “States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards.”
Of course, even this won't stop the usual "progressive" groups from blasting such laws. In an age when virtually anything is dubbed "racist," something that even remotely impacts minorities (seemingly negatively) will also be so dubbed.
(h/t to Insty.)
Tale of a brutal assault on a cabbie and passenger in Philly:
In a horrific assault in Center City Saturday night, three teenagers who were spouting off racial slurs pulled a man out of a cab to beat him and when the cab driver intervened to stop the assault, the teens turned their rage on him, according to police.
Around 8:23 p.m., a Liberty Taxi cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached the cab and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.
The boys then threw an unknown liquid at the cab before they opened the door and pulled the passenger out and started pummeling him, according to police.
Police said the three teens were black and the cabbie and passenger were white. Police did not immediately know if the teens would or could face hate crime charges.
Of course, the logical question is "why?" There's nothing to indicate an "economic" motive -- ie, robbery -- in the crime; it seems to be a straight up racially motivated attack. I seriously doubt the police wouldn't "immediately know if the teens would or could face hate crime charges" if the colors of attackers and victims were reversed.
The thing is, there's a thing called the Constitution that contains a thing called the 13th Amendment in it. Then again, the way this administration has been pissing all over the document ...
The founder and owner of one of the first and largest abortion clinics in the United States, Merle Hoffman, held a press conference Tuesday to discuss her study that found abortions in the United States are on the rise.
According to Hoffman, as the economy continues to decline, abortions continue to rise. Her study found that 73 percent of women who had an abortion reported that the reason was due to their economic situation.
Hoffman told TheDC that there will be “free states” and “slave states” if President Obama loses the 2012 election to any of the current Republican presidential candidates. (Link.)
Can supposedly intelligent people really be this dumb? Really? Hoffman is speaking about abortion here, keep in mind -- that women would be "slaves" to their unborn child (or something) if the GOP candidate wins the election. Now, let's see ... Hoffman says,
“Each and every [GOP] candidate has specified unequivocally that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. And if in fact they were in the power of the presidency and had the ability to do that … we can see a pre-Roe reality … where you’d have a country where there, in my mind, are free states and slave states.”
Did Hoffman fail Civics 101? No chief executive can "overturn" a Supreme Court decision. There would have to be either a SCOTUS re-examination of Roe, or a constitutional amendment "overturning" Roe. But the latter wouldn't revert abortion laws to the states as Hoffman says -- only the former would. But, again, none of the GOP candidates for prez could sign an executive order saying "Roe is hereby overturned."
Then again, if you look at Hoffman's words carefully, she does say "And if in fact they were in the power of the presidency and had the ability to do that ..." Ah, the power of a conditional clause. Is this some sort of ridiculously way-out there hypothetical? "... and had the ability ...?" But that's just it -- they don't have the ability! No president does. If he did, then why didn't previous pro-life GOP presidents "overturn" Roe (like Reagan)?
Then again, the way things have been going lately in this country, perhaps the Justice Dept. can create a novel legal theory that gives the president such power ...
But let's give credit where credit is due: Most people think that overturning Roe would ban abortion everywhere. False. As Hoffman correctly notes, it would leave it up to the states, which is as it was pre-Roe.
So I was listening to the radio the other day and the local host had the Insurance commissioner on for an interview. It was about as compelling as you can imagine an insurance commissioner interview can be. That is, until the final caller. He asked about the Obamacare mandate that requires people to buy insurance. He said something on the order of "If health insurance is a contract, what right does the government have to force me to enter into a contract?" The host said, "Well that's what the Supreme court is going to decide." Undeterred he said, "OK, but can I get an opinion from the Commissioner?" Silence. About five long seconds of silence. Finally she starts saying "Well you do have to buy auto insurance..." and the caller said "Only if I choose to drive a car. This would be required with no exceptions" Again, silence. Finally the host said, "Well, that's all the time we have, thanks for calling." Radio gold. Even Democrat insurance commissioners when pushed cannot come up with a legal basis for the state compelling me to purchase something or enter into a contract.
... to buy drain cleaner. But ridiculously idiotic "progressives" like one Geezer and our old pal Perry (aka Wagonwheel) are still screaming about how such a requirement to vote "suppresses" votes, is "discriminatory," and addresses a problem "that doesn't exist."
Does requiring photo ID to buy drain cleaner "supress" minorities and the elderly from purchasing the product? Don't these groups have the same right to buy drain cleaner that other groups do -- groups that are statistically more likely to possess photo IDs? And does the drain cleaner requirement address a problem that "doesn't exist?" After all, only a few (two, to be precise) mentally imbalanced people have used drain cleaner to harm others in the Chicago area.
Idiot "progressives" like Geezer and Perry believe that voter ID laws are a GOP plot to negate traditional Democratic voters. Republicans maintain such a requirement is to preserve the integrity of the voting process. Is the Democratic state rep who sponsored the drain cleaner law attempting to clog the plumbing of historically oppressed groups? Or is he attempting to maintain a degree a public safety with a hazardous product?
It's called, I believe, "work for hire":
Comic book publisher Marvel Entertainment owns the rights to the Ghost Rider character in the fiery form that originated in the early 1970s, a federal judge ruled Wednesday as she rejected the claims of a former Marvel writer seeking to cash in on lucrative movie rights.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest tossed out 4-year-old claims brought by Gary Friedrich, who said he created the motorcycle-driving Ghost Rider with the skeletal head that sometimes had fire blazing from it. A Ghost Rider of the 1950s and '60s was a Western character who rode a horse.
The judge said Friedrich gave up all ownership rights when he signed checks containing language relinquishing all rights to the predecessor companies of Marvel Entertainment LLC.
"The law is clear that when an individual endorses a check subject to a condition, he accepts that condition," the judge wrote.
He (Friedrich) said he thought he had given Marvel the rights to use Ghost Rider in comic books, but that he retained the rights for movies and anything else.
"Was that understanding ever reduced to writing? Marvel attorney David Fleischer asked.
"No," Friedrich answered. (Link)
I know many a comic creator has [some] regrets about the 'ol "work for hire" stuff; this changed largely beginning in the 80s when writers/artists began staking out legal ways to get better compensation for characters they originated. For example, Delawarean David Michelinie apparently negotiated a way to get a small royalty from Marvel for anything sold related to the popular character Venom. Alas, as noted, Friedrich did his Ghost Rider work in the 1970s.
The Philly Inquirer predictably opines against being required to show an ID in order to vote (despite some 70% of the American public supporting such measures, including substantial percentages of the very minorities these laws supposedly "hurt"), stating
Proponents of photo ID argue that people already show a driver's license to pass airport security or to cash a check, so why not flash a photo ID at the polling place? That argument misrepresents the meaning of the right to vote.
Cashing a check or flying on a jet is not a basic American right secured by blood and struggle. Voting is an inalienable right which enables all citizens to participate in their governance.
To which a thoughtful Inky commenter replies:
One needs to produce ID in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and purchase a firearm. Does the Inky also view these requirements as 'Trojan Horses'? If not, why?
Indeed. The fact of the matter is, Inquirer idiots, ALL rights are not absolute. Common sense restrictions and requirements have routinely been constitutionally permitted.
And perhaps the Inquirer idiots should have a look at this, which determines that voter ID measures do NOT have an impact on minority voting.
And don't forget Duffy's pic from a few days ago!
As reported by Ace, TX Governor Rick Perry has proposed as many as eight constitutional amendments he'd like to see ratified if he becomes president. Some are good ideas, some aren't so good. Let's take a gander and judge ...
Organized Prayer in Public Schools Amendment. The first question is, "organized by whom?" If it's school officials, forget it. As it is currently, schools are permitted to have Bible study groups with school official sponsors, provided they meet after school hours. And students (and staff) are permitted to pray already -- silently -- and many districts allow for an "official" moment of silence to do said praying if one so chooses. In today's vastly diverse America, "officially" sanctioned prayer is a terrible idea. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.
Pro-Life Amendment. While I respect (and even agree) with Perry's sentiments on this, I thought conservatives were all about federalism. One of the major complaints about Roe v. Wade is that it took the decision about abortion away from the individual states, allowing for abortion across the land (with certain restrictions). I'd also want to see what, if any, exceptions would be made under the amendment. Rape? Incest? Life of mother? HUBE-O-METER SAYS: UNDECIDED.
Pro-Marriage Amendment. Again, what's the big deal about letting states decide how they'll treat marriage? Not allowing such is something that conservatives should abhor. In this respect, social conservatives aren't much different than liberals in extending federal reach into areas where it ain't wanted. Admittedly, of course, the former's method is more representative and more difficult a process; however, the results end up the same. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.
Balanced Budget Amendment. "Bring it on," is all I can say here. Anything that mandates that we get our fiscal house in order should be OK with everyone. Most versions of such an amendment usually have emergency measure exemptions; I assume Perry's would too. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.
Repeal of 16th Amendment. Again, a hearty "Bring it on!!" The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, knew such a tax was an abomination; apparently, our politicians in the early part of the last century thought (wrongly) that they were wiser. The dreaded 16th Amendment gave rise to the United States' own version of the KGB (the IRS), and philosophically it runs afoul of the 13th Amendment in that it mandates uncompensated servitude (employers doing the work for government withholding taxes -- yeah, I know that's a very libertarian argument, but it's a damn good one). It also was ratified under very suspicious circumstances (see: The Law That Never Was). Of course, it'll take a good plan to replace the federal income tax; I've always been in favor of a national sales tax as a replacement, as it would give consumers the choice as to when, where and how to pay their taxes (i.e. for things they want). But that doesn't seem to be Perry's idea. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.
Repeal of 17th Amendment. This site gives a very detailed examination of the pros and cons of the 17th Amendment -- direct election of senators -- and at least in this realm, Perry's penchant for minimal [federal] government power seems consistent with conservatism. However, in my view, more democracy is better in this area, and if you think we have gridlock in Washington now, imagine what it'll be like when state legislatures refuse to choose US senators due to in-fighting, leading to numerous vacancies in the federal Senate. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.
Abolition of Lifetime Tenure for Judges. I happen to agree with the philosophy that appointment of judges (and lifetime tenure), rather than the election of them, serves to make judges less political. But whether this philosophy actually holds true is another matter. I tend to doubt it. We all know how the US Supreme Court will decide on most issues, because it has a clear conservative and liberal bloc. These justices' appointment and lifetime tenure hasn't made them any less political. Thus, all that being said, I don't see a hassle with a definitive time limit on the tenure of federal judges, some or all of them. Perry's idea is for an 18-year limit, staggered so that every two years a certain number's terms are done. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: BRILLIANT.
Congressional Veto Over SCOTUS Decisions Amendment. Again, those very wise Founders devised a way by which Congress can thwart a [lousy] Supreme Court decision: the constitutional amendment. (Y'know, the very thing Rick Perry likes proposing!) Perry's amendment would allow a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to nullify a SCOTUS decision, thus making the [amendment] process considerably streamlined -- no three-quarters of state legislatures needed. I agree with Perry himself that this "risks increased politicization of judicial decisions," and besides, you wouldn't really need this amendment if the lifetime tenure of judges is abolished. HUBE-O-METER SAYS: LAME.
This certainly comes as little surprise if you've been at all following the racialist nonsense of the current administration over the last three years. No need to dissect the contradictory inanity of it all (again), but once again just consider the following:
1) "Diversity," that ever-nebulous concept, has no proven effect on academic achievement, and
2) how ridiculous is the following in the article (ways to "legally" increase college diversity):
They could also "select high schools for partnership" based, among other things, on "racial composition of the school’s student body" and former partnerships with historically black colleges and universities"
As we've noted numerous times, if diversity is such a hallowed concept -- to be enacted at all costs -- then why do we even maintain "historically" black colleges anymore? How is it "diverse" to have a student that is predominately black?
Once again, educational "progressives" perpetually contradict themselves in their constant worship at the altar of diversity and political correctness. And if you question their beliefs, just like the heretics of old, you'll be [metaphorically] burned at the stake.
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
"Something special" about ... drinking water?? Isn't water ... water? Who cares if it's bottled or not? Bottled, tap, filtered ... they all help prevent dehydration. I mean ... wait, why the hell am I even bothering? This whole thing is just f***ing NUTS!!
Judge Mike Stallman has ruled that the Occupy Wall Street protesters do not have the right to occupy Zuccotti Park.
Best line in the article:
"Without tents, there's a lot of people who just health-wise cannot be here," Rivera said. "So the tents allow us to expand our freedom of speech."
And that gives it away right there! Pitching tents isn't "freedom of speech" -- it "allows them to expand" that freedom. Not to mention it's ironic Rivera mentions "health-wise" since Occupy DE's brethren in Atlanta decided to set up shop in a homeless shelter where a few people have tested positive for tuberculosis. Idiots.
So, with this ruling and capitulation by the city, I now expect all Delawareans to demand the state/city to waive any mandatory fees associated with using parks or other spaces ... especially our state park fees (just put a sign on your car and scream "BUT WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH??!!"), not to mention an abolition to all vagrancy and loitering laws. If I wish to pitch a tent on the shoulder along I-95 or the sidewalk along Concord Pike, I DEMAND that I not be arrested and allowed to continue my "protest." It's FREE SPEECH, after all.
UPDATE: Zombie covers Occupy Berkeley where students upset they’re in the 1% throw an Occupy tantrum.
“The right to free speech is of the utmost importance to a free society,” Glasscock said. “And the depravation [sic] of the right to speech is irreparable harm.”
This was in reference to the group's desire to set up camp in Spencer Plaza in downtown Wilmington. So, tell me: How is setting up tents "free speech?" How is not having the "right" to set up tents to camp out in "irreparable harm?"
In other Occupy DE news, the group turned down an offer of legal assistance from the right-leaning Rutherford Instutute in favor of that of the ACLU. Surprise that, huh? (Doesn't it occur to them how beneficial it'd look to have a conservative group helping them as opposed to just another moonbat group?) And lastly, WTF is the News Journal doing spending so much freakin' time covering this pathetic, TINY LITTLE group when there are plenty of more worthy stories out there?
Every generation has to learn for themselves that hippies are assholes.
Let's see if THE NARRARIVETM is true to reality:
Three people arrested Thursday night inside the Occupy Boston camp have been charged with dealing crack cocaine ... "Things have changed drastically. It seems to be deteriorating,” the man told Carl. “A lot of drug use, alcohol use, people getting into fights… It’s deteriorating pretty quick.”
In Los Angeles, OWSers shut down a Burger King in "protest":
Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose. She said the death highlights the need for more addiction services because drugs are such a big issue in the city.
Three people were arrested Saturday as part of the ongoing Occupy Phoenix protest. Sgt. Trent Crump, a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department, said two people were arrested at Cesar Chavez Plaza in downtown Phoenix for breaking urban camping laws. One person was arrested on a felony warrant.
Here in Delaware, protesters are in danger of following in Phoenix's footsteps:
Occupy Delaware protesters, who are railing against perceived economic inequality and corporate control of government, thumbed their noses at Gov. Jack Markell again Sunday, rejecting a state permit to camp out in Wilmington's Brandywine Park.
But the protesters' decision to migrate to Peter Spencer Plaza, next to the Boggs Federal Building, could lead to a confrontation with Wilmington police this morning.
As you've no doubt surmised by now, my main objection to OWS is the preposterous media double standard with regards to it and its coverage of the Tea Party. Not to mention, the preposterous double standard by OWS-supporting "progressives" themselves. For example,
And on and on it goes. In other words, do not listen to one word of protest from a so-called "progressive" about the coverage/treatment of the OWSers ... until you've established that he/she wasn't ridiculously critical of the Tea Party and its motives/actions.
Hube blogged a while back about a complaint filed against Catholic University of America claiming that its display of crucifixes was discriminatory against Muslim students. Fortunately, this complaint seems to be the work of a legal professor at another university with too much time on his hands, rather than a sign that Muslim students are actually this crazy. (Source)
The President of CUA sent an email to the students, faculty and staff of CUA part of which is excerpted below:
The fact is that no Muslim student at Catholic University has registered a complaint with the University about the exercise of their religion on campus. And today we learned from an article in the Washington Post that Mr. Banzhaf himself has not received any complaints from our Muslim students. Instead, according to today’s Washington Post, he based his complaint on an article that appeared in that newspaper in December 2010. Contrary to the impression Mr. Banzhaf would like to create, the December 2010 Post article spoke in overwhelmingly positive terms about the experience of Muslim students at Catholic University, and explained why they are attracted to us. A considerable part of the attraction stems from the fact that our community, because of its own outward expressions of Catholic faith, makes them feel comfortable living their faith among us. The evidence bears this out. Since 2007 our Muslim enrollment has more than doubled, from 56 to 122.
(You can view the whole email at the link above.)
The National Catholic Register reports that even CAIR views the whole to-do as a non-issue:
Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called the crucifix complaint “a non-issue.”
“Muslims pray all the time in various locations,” Hooper told EWTN News. “A Muslim can pray anywhere, practically, from a bus station to a classroom to a cubicle at work.”
Hooper acknowledged that distracting images are present in many locations, but said that they should not prevent Muslims from focusing on their prayers.
“These kinds of things occur every day,” he said.
“Particularly at a Catholic institution, you would assume that there would be Catholic symbols in locations throughout the university.”
Hooper does believe that Muslim students at Catholic University should be permitted to have an organization on campus if other religious groups are allowed to. But he believes that the issue can be dealt with through dialogue rather than legal action.
“American Muslims have very good relations with the Catholic community,” he noted.
The professor who originated the complaint has a well-deserved reputation for self-promotion and attention-grabbing lawsuits. There's a (poorly-designed) website devoted to his history of attention-seeking, including a propensity for choosing license plates spelling out some form of "Sue the Bastards".
So this isn't a case of hyper-sensitive/trouble-making students, but yet one more example of a self-promoting lawyer attempting to make trouble where none existed.
The official allegations claim that CUA, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion,” according to a press release on PRLOG.com.
This formal complaint also maintains that the new same-sex residence halls are particularly discriminating against female students, which is a new position on the same-sex lawsuit that began last month.
That's a crying f'in shame now, ain't it? Check this: Catholic University is a PRIVATE university and hence can "provide" whatever the hell it pleases for its students. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Try a public university where such "provisions" are given.
What I don't get is that the complaints also says
... [Catholic] University is denying Muslim students the same benefits that students of other religions are able to enjoy since there is no formal Muslim association sponsored by Catholic University but the Columbus School of Law has an association for Jewish students.
But here we read this:
Wiaam Al Salmi, a Muslim student at CUA who recently started the Arab American Association, which had is first meeting this week, said, “The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice it.”
So, whaaaa ...?
If this nonsense persists, then I say Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Buddhists etc. should all enroll in Islamic schools across the country and file lawsuits when school administrators don't agree to "provide" accommodations for them. See how "tolerant" and "accommodating" these schools are.