Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Hugh Downs on Life

Hugh Downs on Life

Profiles in Cowardice: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Planned Parenthood Funding

Profiles in Cowardice--Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Planned Parenthood Funding

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)  gave a revealing interview to a Kentucky television station regarding his "leadership" style and priorities.



McConnell bragged how under his helm in the 114th Congress, the Republican leadership has brought order to disorder and been more productive.  There are 10 times the number of roll call votes than under the last term with ex Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Senate is on the road to passing a budget on time, which Democrat Senate had been unable to do five of six years under the Obama Administration. Furthermore, Senator McConnell bragged about allowing for bipartisan votes, and he specifically cited the Iran Nuke Vote.

Consequently, Leader McConnell will not fight to stop Planned Parenthood funding. The so called Leader lamented that the votes simply were not there to override a veto. Too bad, so sad.

Apparently, Mr. McConnell does not appreciate the overwhelming anger of the Republican base about a do-nothing Congress which stands for nothing.

Senator McConnell conveniently forgot about Senator Rand Paul's effort to attach a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment to the highway bill, which was virtually a must pass piece of legislation. The Republican Majority Leader followed his predecessor's practice of filling the amendment tree so that no amendments (other than what the Majority Leader preferred) could be attached.  

Instead, Senator McConnell promised a "stand alone" defund Planned Parenthood vote, which inevitably fell short of attaining cloture, meaning that the bill would never be finally voted upon, but phony conservatives could still say that they voted against Planned Parenthood to their gullible constituents while on the hustings or in town hall meetings.

For budget reconciliation votes, there is a special mechanism (the Byrd rule) which does not require a cloture vote to cut off debate.  So theoretically, a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding rider could pass and land on  President Obama's desk, where it is likely that America's most pro-abortion Chief Executive would veto the budget.  Which would mean that Mr. Obama would be responsible for closing down the government to support Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts.

But the Republican establishment is scared of its own shadow much less the prospect of having a government shutdown blamed on them. So seemingly, the GOP Congresssional "leadership" (particularly in the Senate) will acquiesce to anything to avoid that outcome.

Senator McConnell's profile in cowardice in prematurely waving the white flag on the budget shows that he cares more about a hollow set of accomplishments instead of standing for life, law,  or principles.  Aside from more roll call votes, how can Senate leadership in the 114th Congress be distinguished from the Democrats.  President Obama gets everything he wants.  If there is legislation which rubs him the wrong way, the Republican establishment in the Senate caves when Mr. Obama "threatens" to take out his veto pen.  

At this point, Mr. Obama is a lame duck who should have waning influence even within his own party. Admittedly, Planned Parenthood funding might be a major fight, but it would be worth it to a principled party.  This is not a new law outlawing abortion, it is enforcing existing law on fetal pain partial birth abortion and outlawed abortion practices, which the Center for Medical Progress have show that Planned Parenthood is flagrantly flouting the rule of law. 

During the WYMT-TV  Issues and Answers interview,  Mr. McConnell seemed proud to endorse upcoming Iran Nuke Vote.  There are strong prospects for passage but it may not garner the 2/3rds vote for a veto proof majority.  Using McConnell's same logic, Republicans should fold up tent and give up because it will not be signed into law.  

Of course, the Corker/Cardin procedure ignores proper procedure that a binding international agreement (treaty) must have 2/3rds yea votes (instead of disapproval by 2/3rds). But even if the Iran Nuke vote fails to block enactment, a strong show of disapproval would give the next President indication of the unpopularity of the Executive Agreement.  Similarly, passing a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment might not stand in the short term, but it would lay down a marker for the future.  But that involves standing for principle and not feathering one's nest for the next time to try and hoodwink Republican primary voters.

As elites in the District of Calamity (sic) seem increasingly out of touch, it is worthy to point out some guide posts.  Senator Ted Cruz's July floor speech exposing the perfidy of Mitch McConnell regarding the Ex-Imp bank showed the duplicity of establishment Republicans to the base.  The current front-runners in the Republican Presidential race are all outsiders (Trump, Cardin, Fiorina and Cruz) running on a Washington Is Broken meme.  Avoiding hard votes, like Defunding Planned Parenthood may make big time contributors happy but it bodes poorly with the well-informed base who vote in primaries.  And in the end, when it comes to choosing between a progressive and a progressive lite, why not choose the real thing, because you know what you are getting and it won't be a lie.

Latest Hillary E-Mail Dump Offers Incisive Oppo Analysis

Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal on House Speaker John Boehner


The latest batch of Hillary Clinton's sanitized State Department e-mails offered some incisive analysis of the opposition by Clinton's "unofficial" advisor Sidney Blumenthal.   

Blumenthal's sharp criticisms from 2011 of the newly elected Speaker of the House John Boehner seem to reflect the initial animus against elites which the wave of Tea Party candidates harbored for a do nothing Congress.

However, the Clinton confidant goes much further than the public grousing against the putative head of the GOP-e Cocktail Party. The ad hominem attacks gut Speaker Boehner's leadership and loyalty.

Where "Sid Vicious"'s assessment seems awry is being "Delay without the whip".  Despite misgivings by many in the Republican Caucus, Boehner and the current leadership team have managed to retain their positions.

 John Boehner was be re-elected for another term as House Speaker in January 2015, despite a couple of last minute challenges by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX 1st), Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL 10th) et ali.  Boehner won re-election by two votes. This coup within the GOP caucus may have been thwarted because there were a number of missing New York Democrats who were attending former Governor Mario Cuomo's (D-NY) funeral the day of the vote, which lowered the threshold for  having a majority.

Dissatisfaction has not been abated from Tea Party types in the House Republican caucus. In July 2015, Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC 11th) introduced a Resolution to Declare the Office of Speaker of the House vacant.  Since this was not a privileged motion, the resolution needs to go through the regular committee process, in which it will likely be quashed by Republican Boehner supporters.

For his part, Speaker Boehner does not quietly suffer indignation from insurgents.  Recently, during a political fundraiser in Colorado, John Boehner noted that a leading Tea Party figure, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been on the Presidential primary hustings which he said keeps that "jackass" out of Washington. So much for Reagan's 11th commandment.

The hallmark of the 2016 Republican Presidential primary campaign has been outsiders who are rally around the perception that Washington doesn't work with the current ineffectual leadership.  One wonders how an anti-establishment wave would work with the accomodationist leadership of Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).  Could Boehner co-opt incoming Freshmen again or would their anger at the system and earnestness effectuate real change in the District of Calamity (sic)?

Albert Einstein on Conscience

Albert Einstein on Conscience

Friday, August 28, 2015

On Being Offended and Campus Speech Codes

UNC- Wilmington Professor Mike Adams on Free Speech


Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.
 
Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.


Of course, this ban on “disrespectful” speech is really only illusory. The university that created these speech restrictions then turns around and sponsors plays like The Vagina Monologues, which is loaded with profanity including the c-word – the most offensive and disrespectful word a person could ever possibly apply to a woman. It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

So, the university position can be roughly summarized as follows: Public university administrators have a First Amendment right to use disrespectful profanity but public university students do not. This turns the First Amendment on its head. The university has its free speech analysis completely backwards. And that’s why they need to be sued.

Before we go, let us take a few minutes to look at the last page of your syllabus where I explain the importance of coming to class on time, turning off your cell phone, and refraining from talking during lectures. In that section, I explain that each of you has God-given talents and that your Creator endowed you with a purpose in life that is thwarted when you develop these bad habits.



Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt. 

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.



Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.
                                                                                                                                                    

Professor Mike Adams is no stranger to controversy.  This tenured conservative professor ruffled the feathers  progressives by having the temerity to assert that marriage consists of one man and one woman.



Considering the ferocity of condemnation from his colleagues, it is a reminder that the Theory of Gender is all about intellectual totalitarianism transferred to the polity. It seems such elitists intellectuals are leaders of the idiot tribe, influencing the otherwise apathetic hoi polloi.

H/T: Mike Adams
        Townhall.com

The Theory of Gender and Totalitarianism

Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron on the Theory of Gender