UCLA Students to be asked to declare sexual orientation when applying…..

Yet another example of how radicalized to the point of bumbling abject stupidity academia has fallen.

CBS LA:

The next influx of UC students may be asked to state their sexual orientation.

In January, the Academic Senate recommended that upon accepting admission offers from a University of California school students should have the option of identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender.

The UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools had mixed reactions but agreed that the question would allow them to collect important statistical information. They recommended putting the question on the SIR forms instead of college applications to protect students’ privacy.

The news made the front page of UCLA’s campus paper Daily Bruin and is stirring controversy across UC campuses.

 

Sandra Fluke Being Run by White House

Sandra Fluke claims to have no money for birth control, but she is flying all over the country speaking and appearing. How is she even attending class? How much it cost to have Anita Dunn’s PR firm (her husband is White House counsel), the PR firm that is closest to the White House, represent you?

Wal-Mart sells birth control pills for $9.00 a month. Many not for profit clinics give them away or sell them for even cheaper than Wal-Mart, but no, the Catholic Church needs to be forced to pay for “day after” abortion pills? Give me a break.

UPDATE – There is now a Send a Condom to Sandra Fluke Facebook Group – LINK.

Sabato: Romney Surrogates Kept Newt Off Virginia Ballot (video)

This is not some reporter or blogger saying this and it sure isn’t Alex Jones, this is Larry Sabato who is the most quoted political scientist alive. Sabato writes many of the political science texts used in universities. While this writer believes that many professors are full of it, Sabato has credibility in spades.

About Civility Part III: Cable Networks Eagerly Bash Rush But Embrace Crude Bill Maher

Warning, some of these descriptions are graphic. What is interesting is that even after Bill Mahar said these horrible things, attacked and mocked Christians etc, the networks said what a delight and pleasure it was to have him on while making more of these attacks, examples of which you will see below.

Much of the time, those shouting *civility* are the biggest hypocrites imaginable. For some shocking evidence of just what I am talking about take a look at About Civility Part I and About Civility Part II [you can see our previous Sandra Fluke coverage HERE and HERE.]

 

Via Newsbusters:

Monday, on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, host Ed Schultz — who last year had to apologize after he called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a “slut” — urged liberals to exploit Limbaugh’s use of the same term (also with an apology) to get his show cancelled. Schultz fantasized: “If there is a time to get him off the air, this is the push. I mean, if women in this country are serious about what they hear on the free airwaves of America, there’s no better time.”

Now, here’s a rundown of some demeaning language used by Bill Maher in just a nine day period last March:

■ On March 18, 2011, Maher, on his HBO show Real Time, employed a crude term for a female body part when talking about Sarah Palin: “Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan, and she’s demanding that we invade Tsunami. I mean, she says, ‘These Tsunamians will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats….”

■ A week later, on his March 25 show, Maher insulted Palin and Michele Bachman as “bimbos.” Talking about the GOP field, Maher argued: “If Bachmann and Palin get in, that’s two bimbos, and then there’s Mitt Romney, a millionaire, and Newt Gingrich, a professor. We just need a skipper and a buddy – we’ve got Gilligan’s Island.”

■ Two days after that, on March 28, Maher employed the C-word in talking about Palin during a show in Dallas. According to a favorable review in the Dallas Voice: “It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a ‘cunt’ (‘there’s just no other word for her’) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.”

But none of this prompted any of the scolding that has greeted Limbaugh’s transgression. In fact, in the days and months that followed, CNN and MSNBC cheerfully included Maher a dozen times as a guest in their line-up. Only Chuck Todd, filling for Chris Matthews on Hardball, brought up Maher’s vicious comments just one day after the day after his Dallas event: “Any regrets on what you said?”

Maher, predictably, said he wasn’t sorry: “I’m not trying to hurt somebody’s feelings. But if you want me to say ‘I’m sorry, what I said was wrong,’ no, sorry, I can’t go there.”

 

These demeaning comments have not caused the news networks to sour on Maher, as he continues to make regular appearances and receive pats on the back from CNN and MSNBC hosts:

■ On March 22, 2011 — in the midst of his storm of nasty comments about conservative women, Maher appeared on CNN’s In the Arena. Host Eliot Spitzer did not ask about Maher’s “dumb twat” insult of Palin from four days earlier, or pose any hostile questions to Maher. Spitzer ended by genuflecting: “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”

■ On March 29, 2011, Maher made his MSNBC Hardball appearance with Chuck Todd, as noted above. While Todd — unlike CNN’s Spitzer — did ask Maher about how he was “getting hammered in the conservative blogosphere, among a lot of conservative hosts” for his nasty comments about Palin and Bachmann, he was in no way judgmental.

Todd ended that interview by publicizing both Maher’s upcoming show on HBO as well as appearances in Indiana and North Carolina. “Bill Maher, always entertaining to have you on.”

■ On April 12, 2011, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hosted Maher, and not once asked about his nasty comments about women. Instead of scolding Maher for his deplorable remarks, Maddow was thrilled to have him: “It is nice to see you….I’m very excited….Thank you so much for being on with us, Bill. It’s really nice to see you. Thank you.”

■ On May 3, 2011, Maher popped up on The Joy Behar Show on CNN’s Headline News Network. Behar fawned over her guest: “I love your show. I watch you every week, and I really get irritated when they put you on hiatus.”

■ On May 17, 2011, Maher showed up on MSNBC’s Hardball, where Chris Matthews touted him as their “star guest.” Maher trashed Michele Bachmann as a “frothing loon,” jabbing that “Bachmann is the candidate for people who find Palin too intellectual.”

■ On June 14, 2011, CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed Maher about the GOP debate. Maher unleashed his usual invective, declaring that the Republican candidates “have just horrible, society-killing ideas about America.”

■ On July 11, 2011, Maher appeared as a guest on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, and made the host laugh with a crude reference to Palin and Michele Bachmann. Morgan asked Maher about the GOP nomination: “If you had a choice, gun to your head, which one is it? Palin or Bachmann?”

Maher replied: “I would need a gun to my head. I hope Sarah Palin gets in so that they split the MILF vote.” MILF is an acronym for a “Mother I’d Like to Fuck.” The CNN host ended the interview by telling Maher: “May you remain gloriously uncensored on HBO…Love the show.”

■ On August 3, 2011, fill-in host Michael Eric Dyson had “the great Bill Maher” on MSNBC’s The Ed Show. Dyson touted Maher as “my very good friend.”

■ On October 11, 2011, Maher returned to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show, which Maddow eagerly promoted. “The one and only Bill Maher is going to be here for an interview tonight,” she promised viewers. Talking about the radical Occupy protesters, Maher used the occasion to suggest violence against Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch: “If a brick came through Rupert Murdoch’s window, I have a feeling Fox News would be a lot more gentle on the Wall Street people….”

■ On January 25, 2012, CNN’s Cooper brought Maher onto his show to talk about Obama’s State of the Union speech and the Republican nomination contest. During that interview, Maher made a derogatory reference to Mormons, predicting Romney would be the nominee and: “I think Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife.” Cooper winced: “Geez, your runaway sister wife? I haven’t heard an LDS punchline in quite a while.”

■ On February 27, 2012, Chris Matthews was thrilled to see Maher back on Hardball where he talked about the Republican “crazies” and “idiots.” “Hey, Maher, you’re the best,” Matthews flattered. “You’re the funniest, smartest guy around….Thank you, Bill Maher — you’re an Irish guy, too. Thank you for coming on.”

■ That same night, Morgan interviewed Maher again, this time prompted by his $1 million donation to Obama’s SuperPAC. Maher mocked Christianity: “You’re allowed to have your opinion that a Palestinian 2,000 years ago walked on water and did magic tricks and was really —  he’s really still his own father and all that stuff.” As always, Morgan was delighted: “Bill Maher, always a great pleasure.”

 

About Civility Part II: Bill Mahar Headlining Democrat Party Fundraisers

Rush Limbaugh was trying to use absurdity to demonstrate her absurdity and went to far; then there is Bill Maher donated $1 million to Obama’s SuperPAC and he regularly uses the words c*nt, tw*t, b**ch, boob, etc to describe female politicians and others he doesn’t like.

Now this is not justification for Limbaugh’s mistake, but when I look at the facebook pages of those having a fit about Limbaugh, I see nothing about Bill Mahar, or so many others. In fact, as far as the elite media goes, they were blaming Sarah Palin for the Arizona shooting and that went on for days… and these are the people acting as if they are the civility police.. please.

Much of the time, those shouting *civility* are the biggest hypocrites imaginable. For some shocking evidence of just what I am talking about take a look at About Civility Part I and About Civility Part III [you can see our previous Sandra Fluke coverage HERE and HERE.]

Special thanks to National Review for doing some good homework:

The Democratic party continues its bold stand against hateful rhetoric, such as the C-word, this time in Alabama:

An Evening with Bill Maher

March 17, 2012 Chairman’s Reception at 7pm

Performance at 8pm

Come join Alabama Democrats at the Von Braun Center Concert Hall in Huntsville for an Evening with Bill Maher. 700 Monroe Street Southwest, Huntsville, AL 35801.

Tickets are $100 and include admission to the pre-event Chairman’s reception and prime seating at the performance.

Paid for by the Alabama Democratic Party. P.O. Box 950. Montgomery, AL 36101. (334) 262-2221. (800) 995-3386.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin

Also, Michelle Malkin, who is routinely called every dirty name in the book and more in a constant smear campaign from the left that never ends, has a must see column today titled The War on Conservative Women.

About civility….

UPDATE – Be sure to see About Civility Part II and About Civility Part III.

Rush Limbaugh was trying to use absurdity to demonstrate her absurdity and went to far; then there is Bill Mahar who donated $1 million to President Obama’s SuperPac and he regularly uses the words c*nt, tw*t, b**ch, boob, etc to describe female politicians he doesn’t like.

Now this is not justification for Limbaugh’s mistake, but when I look at the facebook pages of those having a fit about Limbaugh, I see nothing about Bill Mahar, or so many others. In fact, as far as the elite media goes, they were blaming Sarah Palin for the Arizona shooting and that went on for days… and these are the people acting as if they are the civility police.. please.

Much of the time, those shouting *civility* are the biggest hypocrites imaginable. Here is a great piece of evidence of just what I am talking about:

Sandra Fluke: Catholic Institutions Should Pay for My Sex Change!

Sandra Fluke
Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke demanded in her testimony to Congress that Catholic Universities, Hospitals and other institutions give her $3,000 worth of birth control because she goes to school at Georgetown (Catholic) University which is enough to buy so many condoms that she could have sex three times a day, every day she is in school. Fluke also wants Catholic institutions to pay for so called “morning after” abortion pills (See our previous Sandra Fluke coverage HERE).

It gets better.

Fluke, according to transcripts, also expects Catholic institutions, insurance companies, government, small businesses etc to pay for sex changes.

Media Research Center:

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.”

Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

“A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”

This so called “prime example” of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services” starting on page 636:

“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their “heterosexist” health insurance policies don’t believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Read more HERE.

Boy 13 set on fire two blocks from school

Another argument for “separation of school and state”…

Reason 436,574 of why and how progressive secular leftist unionized education creates more problems than it solves, event in the so called “conservative Midwest”. Keep in mind that even at Bible belt central Missouri State University, Christian student Emily Booker was ordered by professors to have a homosexual experience and to lobby the state legislature in favor of same sex adoption or be expelled from school. The school expelled her and she sued in federal court and won. This kind of radicalism is not uncommon among progressive educators at all.

NY Daily News:

A 13-year-old boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire last week while walking home from school is recovering from first-degree burns to his face and head.

The boy was just two blocks from his home in Kansas City Tuesday when two teenagers began to follow him and then attacked him, his mother, Melissa Coon, said.

Police have described the suspects as black 16-year-olds, while the victim is white.

“We were told it’s a hate crime,” Coon told KTLA.

“They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open,” Coon told KMBC. “(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, ‘This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'”

By lighting the gasoline, the second attacker “produced a large fireball burning the face and hair” of the boy, according to a Kansas City Police Department report obtained by KCTV.

“It was pretty bad stuff,” Detective Stacey Taylor told the TV station, adding that police are concerned the boy may have suffered damage to his eyes and lungs.

Coon said her son put out the fire with his shirt and called 911 himself. He was rushed to the hospital and was treated for his injuries.

She believes the students also attend East High School with her son, and said he will not be returning to the school. She also told KMBC her traumatized family plans now plans to move.

“My 5-year-old came in and asked me, ‘Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?'” Coon said. “I was in tears.”

Romney lied about always opposing a national insurance mandate (videos)

We have heard it time and time again, “RomneyCare was a choice for Massachusetts as an experiment, but doing it nationally is a bad idea, likely won’t work, and is unconstitutional”. This is what Mitt Romney has been saying since the Iowa debates (LINK), but the video taped evidence shows that Romney was supporting a national insurance mandate up to at least 2009.

In the videos Mitt Romney says that his plan helps keeps costs down, but the record shows that the RomneyCare policy team was not really interested in keeping costs down, and as the record shows the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts has far exceeded the rest of the country (and YOU are helping to pay for it). Even if RomneyCare or such a plan could help keep costs down in theory; the simple truth is that getting control of healthcare (a sixth of our economy) is too much of a temptation for politicians to regulate favors, kickbacks, ideological experiments etc into the system. Government cannot be trusted with that much power as we have seen with socialized health care around the world and are already seeing in ObamaCare.

Mitt Romney not being honest about this is nothing new to our readers as we reported:

Romney: Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative” – LINK

….on January 9th, but these videos bring a new attention to this important story.

“Well that’s what we did in Massachusetts and that is we put together an exchange, the president is copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that. We let people buy their own private insurance. Most people can afford to buy that insurance once you have an exchange that allows them to do that in a cost effective basis.  And then for those that are low income you help them buy their own private insurance. But you don’t set up a government insurance plan because it’s going to end up costing billions of dollars in subsidy. It’s the wrong way to go.”

Related:

New York Magazine: How Romney Advocated Obamacare and Lied About It – LINK

Newsmax: RomneyCare and ObamaCare Are Identical – LINK

MIT Economist: ObamaCare is RomneyCare with three more zeros – LINK

Romney Supporter Florida AG Pam Bondi Says Mitt Wants RomneyCare In Every State – LINK

You paid the high cost of RomneyCare in Massachusetts – LINK

The Truth About RomneyCare – LINK

Newt Gingrich calls out NBC’s David Gregory: No one is trying to ban contreception

Newt Gingrich blasts NBC’s David Gregory and the elite media for deliberately misleading the American people about this made up “access to contraception” issue. No one is being denied access to contraception and not one politician is trying to ban it, yet the elite media and the Democrats are either saying or directly implying that this is what Republicans are trying to do.

The Obama Administration is trying to make the Catholic Church pay for abortion pills.

 

“I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president’s apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion-dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of the week,”

George Will’s excellent comments on this issue:

Harvard holds conference on eliminating Jews – UPDATE Harvard: The Jewish people do not exist….

UPDATE – Harvard Anti-Israel Conference: The Jewish People Do Not Exist – LINK

Make no mistake, when jihadist activists team with progressives on campus have an event called “the one state solution” it means taking Israel off the map for good and the Jews with it. Antisemitism is nothing new on campus as so many including Allen Dershowitz and David Horowitz have pointed out countless times; indeed this very writer has authored at least a dozen pieces on the subject. Rarely, is such genocidal bigotry this plainly stated and in your face. Usually it is thinly sugar coated with colorful euphemisms, but upon cross examination it doesn’t take long to get to the true intent that everyone is perfectly aware of. If you have any doubts about just how bad this problem is, this video should help bring you up to speed. Keep in mind that there are very few on campus who will have the moral fortitude to stand up to this, and it has the blessings of much of the leftist elite and the Harvard administration.

Wall Street Journal:

by Professor Ruth King Wisse February 29th, 2012

Harvard’s Latest Assault on Israel

Promoting the Jewish State’s destruction at a school dedicated to ‘democratic governance.’

In 1948, when the Arab League declared war on Israel, no one imagined that six decades later American universities would become its overseas agency. Yet campus incitement against Israel has been growing from California to the New York Island. A conference at Harvard next week called “Israel/Palestine and the One-State Solution” is but the latest aggression in an escalating campaign against the Jewish state.

The sequence is by now familiar: Arab student groups and self-styled progressives organize a conference or event like “Israeli Apartheid Week,” targeting Israel as the main problem of the Middle East. They frame the goals of these events in buzzwords of “expanding the range of academic debate.” But since the roster of speakers and subjects makes their hostile agenda indisputable, university spokespersons scramble to dissociate their institutions from the events they are sponsoring. Jewish students and alums debate whether to ignore or protest the aggression, and newspapers fueling the story give equal credence to Israel’s attackers and defenders.

A featured speaker at Harvard’s conference is Ali Abunimah, creator of the website Electronic Intifada, who opposes the existence of a “Jewish State” as racist by virtue of being Jewish. A regular on this circuit, he also keynoted a recent University of Pennsylvania conference urging “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) of, from and against Israel. Ostensibly dedicated to protecting Palestinian Arabs from Israeli oppression, BDS has by now achieved the status of an international “movement,” some of whose branches exclude Israeli academics from their journals and conferences.

But the economic war on Israel did not start with BDS. In 1945, before the founding of Israel, the Arab League declared a boycott of “Jewish products and manufactured goods.” Ever since, the Damascus-based Central Boycott Office has tried to enforce a triple-tiered boycott prohibiting importation of Israeli-origin goods and services, trade with any entity that does business in Israel, and engagement with any company or individual that does business with firms on the Arab League blacklist. Although the U.S. Congress took measures to counteract this boycott, and the Damascus Bureau may be temporarily preoccupied on other fronts, the boycott momentum has been picked up by Arab students and academics.

Freedom of speech grants all Americans the right to prosecute the verbal war against Israel. But let’s differentiate toleration from abetting. Harvard may tolerate smoking, but its medical school wouldn’t sponsor a conference touting the benefits of cigarettes because doctors have learned that smoking is hazardous to health. The avowed mission of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, host of the upcoming conference, “is to strengthen democratic governance around the world by preparing people for public leadership and by helping to solve problems of public policy.” How farcical that instead of seeking to strengthen democratic governance, its students hijack its forum for “studying” how to destroy the hardiest democracy in the Middle East.

The pattern of anti-Israel attack, administrative embarrassment, Jewish confusion, and media exploitation of the story will continue until all parties realize that the war against Israel is fundamentally different from biases to which it is often compared. Once Americans acknowledged the evils of their discrimination against African-Americans, they abjured their racism and tried through affirmative action to compensate for past injustice. Arab and Muslim leaders have done the opposite. Having attempted to deny Jews their right to their one country, they accused Jews of denying Arabs their 22nd. After losing wars on the battlefield, they prosecuted the war by other means.

Students who are inculcated with hatred of Israel may want to express their national, religious or political identity by urging its annihilation. But universities that condone their efforts are triple offenders—against their mission, against the Jewish people, and perhaps most especially against the maligners themselves. Smoking is less fatal to smokers than anti-Jewish politics is to its users. Remember Hitler’s bunker.

Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of “Jews and Power” (Schocken, 2007).

Orange County Register: As climate case melts, zealots resort to fraud

OC Register:

Respected scientist admits using false identity to obtain documents from a skeptic group.

Peter Gleick, a global warming true believer and purported scientific ethics expert, has admitted soliciting, receiving then distributing confidential fundraising and budget documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses, all to discredit Heartland, a free-market think tank that disputes global warming alarmism.

We await determinations of whether violations of state or federal laws on wire fraud and identity theft, and perhaps other offenses, occurred. Illinois-based Heartland has called in the FBI.

Mr. Gleick admitted the scheme in which he posed as a Heartland board member to obtain confidential files and sent them to global warming blogs as if they had been leaked by an insider. He denies, however, forging an accompanying “confidential strategy memo.” Heartland says the memo is not genuine, and there are indications it may have been created on the West Coast, where Mr. Gleick is president and founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland.

Mr. Gleick requested a leave of absence from the institute after posting his confession online, in which he said, “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated – to attack climate science.”

Unfortunately, we are accustomed to global warming zealots making a sham of ethics as well as tarnishing science. Thanks partly to leaks of climate researchers’ emails in recent years, the global warming movement has been revealed to be a cloistered club of insiders, who bully dissenting scientists, plot to keep contrary views from being published and manipulate data.

That’s why Mr. Gleick’s antics don’t surprise us. For example, Greenpeace reportedly stole garbage from Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also debunks global warming alarmism. The pilfered refuse showed up in media reports intended to “reveal a secret cabal I orchestrated from my basement,” Mr. Horner wrote in his book, “Red Hot Lies.”

Global warmists contend that Heartland and other critics secretly are funded by Big Oil and other fossil fuel interests. The irony is that the stolen Heartland documents reveal the small think tank’s budget of $6 million pales compared with the $26 billion in Obama administration stimulus funds pumped into global-warming friendly causes, plus the hundreds of millions spent annually by warmist-friendly groups like Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.

As real life increasingly refutes the theory of global warming doom, warmists have become more shrill and desperate. Mr. Gleick’s tattered reputation is but the latest result of a movement fraught with credibility problems. Perhaps more damaging is the uncooperative climate. Despite soaring carbon dioxide emissions for 10 to 15 years, temperatures remain essentially flat or, perhaps, have even declined, depending on which standard is used.

Thom Hartmann: Newt is right about the Supreme Court

Aside from the brief tangent into cookdom where Hartman says that Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas want the Supreme Court to run your lives, (actually in countless speeches they say that the court was never meant to be five of nine judges making decrees on how our society is run) this video is spot on and it is what I learned when I took Constitutional Law at IU under Judge Allen Sharp.

Thom Hartman:

I agree with Newt Gingrich. Not about politics, of course. But, Newt is right about the Supreme Court. And progressives should pay attention. On this, Gingrich agrees with former President Thomas Jefferson – and most of the other founders of this country. Let’s break it down. First, Newt’s assertion that the Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can’t do.

Here’s the exact language -“[T]he Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Yes, that’s what the Constitution says – in plain black and white. If Congress disagrees with – for example – the Citizens United decision, or the Bush v. Gore meeting – they can simply pass a law that says that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and that’s the end of that.

Why, you may ask, did the Founders write it this way? The answer is really simple. They wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people – and Congress is up for election every two years. It’s the body in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people. It’s where they wanted most of the power, which is why it’s defined in Article One of the Constitution – the first among equals. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to Mr. Jarvis, who thought Supreme Court justices should have the power to strike down laws, “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy….The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.”

Please read the Constitution. Nowhere in it does it say that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nowhere. And for the first fourteen years of our Republic, the Court never even considered the idea. As Newt pointed out, Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 -“[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever….It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”

But in 1803, a hard-right-wing Chief Justice named John Marshall ruled, in a case named Marbury versus Madison, that the Supreme Court could strike down laws as unconstitutional. President Jefferson went apoplectic. He wrote that if that decision wasn’t challenged by Congress: “[T]hen indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so [a suicide pact]. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.” But Marshall and the Court backed down, somewhat. For the next twenty years, he never again ruled a law unconstitutional. He never again said that a few unelected Judges were the Kings of America, with nobody who had the power to undo their decisions. But that’s what Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito want you to believe. They can make George W. Bush President, without any appeal. They can make money into speech, they can turn corporations into people, and the rest of us have no say in it.

And they’re wrong.

It’s not what the Constitution says. We don’t have kings in America, and it’s time to seriously debate and challenge the doctrine of Judicial Review – the claim by the Court itself that it has that power. Jefferson wrote – “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution… I will say, that ‘against this every man should raise his voice,’ and, more, should uplift his arm.” Why? Because, Jefferson said, “For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny….One single object…will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.” The power of We The People should be with the People and their elected officials, not 5 lawyers who have claimed the right to rule over every other branch of government.

Somebody tell Congress to wake up!

Sandra “Three Times a Day” Fluke turns out to be a radical pro-abortion activist….

UPDATE – Sandra Fluke: Catholic Institutions Should Pay for My Sex Change – LINK

Sandra Fluke says that as a law student she is poor that a Catholic University or an insurance company should be forced to give her birth control for free.

Sandra Fluke says that she uses $3,000 a year worth of birth control; CNS News and others ran the numbers and concluded that she would have to have sex 3 TIMES A DAY every day to use $3,000 worth.

So our friend Rush has a little fun with that statistic and makes jokes a parodies. One of the jokes was that if she wants to have that much sex and wants others to pay for it, are we not in essence paying her to have sex? If so she should post videos.

Rick Santorum, obviously forgetting that anyone who enters the political arena is fair game for jokes from just about everyone (I bet Jay Leno had a ball with this), condemned Rush for making the joke, which obviously had a very serious point behind it, which Rick also wimped out on commenting on.

Of course contraception is free at many health clinics and state run institutions, and that includes birth control; so this has nothing to do with who is going to pay for her insatiable sex habits, rather it is about going after the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and conscience. It is also an effort to close Catholic hospitals and clinics so that government can take one step closer at taking over the health care system (which Kathleen Sibelius just all but admitted that this is the administration goal). It is also important to keep in mind that the Obama Administration is trying to force Catholic institutions not just to provide free contraception, but also to provide free so called “morning after” abortion pills.

Sandra Fluke presented herself as just another average Catholic law student, but in reality she is the president of the radical pro-abortion group “Law Students for Reproductive Justice” (2). Fluke is absurd and should be called out on it.

Famed attorney Mark Levin comments:

Journal of Medical Ethics: It is ethical to murder babies after they are born

I will just deal with the objections right up front:

This is just two whacky professors…

No it is not. This is the Journal of Medical Ethics which is a peer reviewed publication. In order for this article to appear a committee of “medical and academic professionals” had to study the piece, find it credible and agree to publish it believing that it has academic and cultural value. Academic journals are written in part to promote each others work in the academic community; meaning that those who authored it and who decided to publish it had to believe that doing so would be accepted by their peers, good for their careers etc.

The Journal of Medical Ethics doesn’t speak for all doctors…

But it speaks for enough of them. This article will be presented as evidence in abortion and infanticide cases as a defense in the courts and in the elite media. It will be bandied about by radicalized professors on campus to indoctrinate and morally confuse students.

When the American Psychological Association (APA) published in its journal a piece that was a naked attempt to normalize pedophilia; Dr. Laura Schlessinger, many state legislatures, and even the Congress of the United States spoke out and passed resolutions against this until the APA retracted.

UK Telegraph:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Law School Deans Violate Law To Skew Rankings

Ben Shapiro at Big Journalism:

Professors Morgan Cloud and George Shepherd of the Emory University School of Law have released a ground-breaking study showing that law school deans all over the country have been lying in order to obtain better rankings from U.S. News & World Report.

 

They write:

A most unlikely collection of suspects – law schools, their deans, U.S. News & World Report and its employees – may have committed felonies by publishing false information as part of U.S. News‘ ranking of law schools. The possible federal felonies include mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, and making false statements. Employees of law schools and U.S. News who committed these crimes can be punished as individuals, and under federal law the schools and U.S. News would likely be criminally liable for their agents’ crimes. Some law schools and their deans submitted false information about the schools’ expenditures and their students’ undergraduate grades and LSAT scores. Others submitted information that may have been literally true but was misleading. Examples include misleading statistics about recent graduates’ employment rates and students’ undergraduate grades and LSAT scores. U.S. News itself may have committed mail and wire fraud. It has republished, and sold for profit, data submitted by law schools without verifying the data’s accuracy, despite being aware that at least some schools were submitting false and misleading data. U.S. News refused to correct incorrect data and rankings errors and continued to sell that information even after individual schools confessed that they had submitted false information. In addition, U.S. News marketed its surveys and rankings as valid although they were riddled with fundamental methodological errors.

This should not shock anybody. As I wrote back in my first book, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, the U.S. News rankings are supremely flawed. They rely on how much money each school spends per student – a terrible measure of efficacy – and other professors’ rankings of the schools, which tends to benefit long-established institutions. Even seemingly sure measures, like employment rate of graduates, are problematic; as the authors of the report write, “Schools have been able to count as employed graduates with part-time, minimum wage jobs, even those not requiring legal training or a law degree.”

 

In any case, the schools providing the information often provide faulty or skewed information. The authors suggest that there is criminal liability for such lies and manipulations. Most commonly, law schools are:

(1) submitting false or misleading data about the LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of their J.D. students; (2) using “part-time programs” to create misleading data about the grades and LSAT scores of a school’s students; and (3) publishing false or deceptive information about their graduates’ employment rates.

Law schools do this for a simple reason – they want to boost their applicant pool, boost their prices, and make more money.

Read more HERE.