Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

In the Real World, Not Hollywood, the Left Is Close-Minded, and the Right Allows Dissent

original article: In the Real World, Not Hollywood, the Left Is Close-Minded, and the Right Allows Dissent
June 17, 2015 by David French

I’ve split my professional life between two American cultures: half spent in the bluest-of-blue cities and the other half in the reddest-of-red rural South. I’ve split my jobs between universities and law firms that are almost uniformly Left and conservative nonprofits that are steadfastly Right. I attended a conservative, Christian college and then one of the nation’s most liberal law schools. My family has bounced between Cambridge, Massachusetts, Manhattan, rural Tennessee, small-town Kentucky, and Center City, Philadelphia (where we lived right at the edge of the so-called gayborhood). And after all those travels, I’ve come to at least two important conclusions: The sushi is better in Manhattan, and the freedom is better in Tennessee.

My conservative undergraduate institution — Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tenn. — was far more open to dissent, including from angry atheist classmates (yes, I had a few), than was Harvard Law School. No one was jeered, shouted down, or threatened at Lipscomb. No one called future employers of atheist or liberal students to try to get job offers canceled. Professors didn’t scream at dissenting students, and activists didn’t plaster photoshopped, pornographic pictures of liberals all over campus walls. At Harvard, all those things happened — to conservative students.

RELATED: The Left’s ‘Microaggression’ Obsession Is Indicative of Its Micro-Totalitarian Tendencies

My relatively conservative Kentucky law firm employed people of every ideological stripe, and we engaged in robust (and almost always friendly) discussions of virtually every kind of cultural and political topic. The firm’s pro bono work veered both liberal and conservative, depending on the views of the individual lawyer. When an LGBT activist complained to the managing partner of the firm about my conservative advocacy, she was shut down by a simple statement: “I’m running a law firm here, not the speech police.”

The overwhelming liberal majority expressed themselves freely, while the very few conservatives remained silent. Dissent was decidedly not welcome.

My Manhattan law firm, by contrast, performed only one kind of pro bono service: liberal. Political debates were virtually nonexistent in the workplace, but political conversations happened all the time. The overwhelming liberal majority expressed themselves freely, while the very few conservatives remained silent. Dissent was decidedly notwelcome.

Even the conservative churches I’ve attended have been more ideologically diverse than the two major liberal campuses where I either attended (Harvard Law School) or taught (Cornell Law School). Indeed, the numbers demonstrate the truth of my anecdotal experience, with self-professed Evangelicals more politically diverse than not only Ivy League faculties but entire, allegedly “diverse” Northeastern cities. In other words, you’re more likely to hear a meaningful debate between people of fundamentally different political opinions in a church pew than in New York City.

RELATED: How to Censor Speakers on College Campuses

This reality exerts a powerful influence on the residents of the two regions. While enjoying the undeniable organizational (and psychic) benefits of near-unanimity, urban liberals consistently think debates are “over” when they’ve scarcely begun, fail to understand (much less consider) opposing points of view, and consistently overestimate their cultural strength. An urban liberal can go his entire life without exposure to serious conservative ideas. This leads to an atmosphere rife with bullying but also prone to the occasional embarrassing overreach — such that brave conservatives can, for example, defeat even the largest universities in court as the universities’ ideological zeal outpaces their respect for the Constitution. I’ve been privileged to be a part of many such cases, in courtrooms across the nation.

In the South, I’ve found that rank-and-file conservatives are often amused rather than alarmed by most cultural debates. And while they have a much more difficult time escaping the Left (after all, everyone still has a TV and goes to the movies), they have a hard time taking, say, the Bruce Jenner story seriously. He’s more of a sad curiosity than a harbinger of cultural disaster. Unless they work for politically correct corporations (often those headquartered in Blue America), conservatives in the South usually find that radical social trends don’t affect their jobs, rarely affect their schools (which tend to retain a robust Christian and conservative presence at every level), and are barely a topic of conversation at church.

RELATED: America’s Progressive Autoimmune Crisis Continues Apace

These two cultures create a reality that is exactly the opposite of that portrayed in Hollywood, according to which people always escape smaller towns and cities for the “broader horizons” of New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Yet it’s not small-town America that’s narrow-minded. Our great cities embrace a curious and constricted kind of diversity, in which people of all races, sexual orientations, and personal proclivities are celebrated and embraced — so long as their minds belong to the collective.

The urban Left isn’t willing to embrace legal or cultural federalism and allow states to go their own way.

We have yet to see whether these cultural approaches can coexist indefinitely. While your average Tennessean doesn’t much care what someone in New York City thinks or does, the urban Left isn’t willing to embrace legal or cultural federalism and allow states to go their own way. Instead, it demands that all social trends conform to its agenda, demands that public schools teach social leftism exclusively, and, most recently, refuses to allow even Indiana to chart its own course on religious freedom and tolerance.

RELATED: The Burdens of Thought Policing

Americans tend — over the long run — to reject censorship and intolerance, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. For those of us who live in Free America, our mission is clear: Resist legal and ideological aggression, and model the respect for free speech and individual liberty that we demand from our ideological foes. May the best culture win.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, freedom, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism, unintended consequences

Filed under: corruption, liberalism, bias, left wing, political correctness, ideology, philosophy, oppression, freedom, diversity, culture, bigotry, abuse, extremism, intolerance, discrimination, relativism, elitism, bullies, unintended consequences, progressive

School district wants to teach masturbation to kindergarteners

original article: School District Considering Sex Education for Kindergartners
September 29, 2014 by KATHERINE TIMPF

Clark County School District in Las Vegas is considering updating its curriculum to require a sex education program for all kindergarteners that teaches them how to masturbate.

Under the new curriculum, children ages 5 through 8 would be taught that “touching one’s genitals to feel good is called masturbation.”

Last week, dozens of parents went to the school board to express their horror, according to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal.

“You want to teach my 5-year-old how to masturbate?” parent Julie Butler said, according to the Journal.

The masturbation information is just one part of more than 100 pages of changes the school is considering making to its sex education policy. Other controversial suggestions include teaching kids ages 5 through 8 about homosexuality and homosexual attraction.

Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky tried to calm the outraged parents by assuring them that the board had not formally proposed the policy for the district — it was simply seeking community input.

But some say the board seems to be purposely limiting community involvement in the decision. In fact, the meetings are invite-only.

“I felt it was quite limited in scope and who was able to attend,” parent Nicole Luth said.

But the potential changes hit the headlines after invited attendees emailed them to other parents.

“I don’t’ think any of us were ready for anything like that to come out; it was shocking,” said CCSD Trustee Deanna Wright, said.

Do you think there needs to be a separation between school and state?

bureaucracy, children, corruption, culture, education, ethics, extremism, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, progressive, reform, relativism, scandal, sex

Filed under: bureaucracy, children, corruption, culture, education, ethics, extremism, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, progressive, reform, relativism, scandal, sex

HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE

original article: HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE
July 3, 2015 by John Nolte

In a sign of the overt fascism and religious persecution to come in the wake of a Left emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage ruling, a judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.

The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

That this kind of fascist oppression was always the endgame in the Left’s push for same sex marriage, was apparent to anyone familiar with the Left’s tactics.

The push for same sex marriage was always nothing more the Left’s sheep’s clothing in a crusade to destroy Christians and the Christian Church.

By adhering to the word of God, the Left will label Christians bigots and haters, and use the power of boycotts and the State to punish and silence us.

Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, the gay-pride flag will become the fascist banner under which any Church that doesn’t perform same sex marriages will be dismantled piece-by-piece. The tools used by the Gaystapo will include coordinated hate campaigns in the media, as well as political campaigns aimed at removing the Church’s tax exempt status.

Christians and conservatives who never believed this could happen are part of the problem.

1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake me a cake, or else.

2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.

Moreover, it is not discrimination to not want to be forced by the State to participate in and profit from what Christians correctly see as the sacramentalization of sin, which is what a same sex marriage ceremony is. Christians believe our very soul is at stake.

Besides the State, the true bigoted oppressor here is the fascist lesbian couple demanding Christians be silenced by the State, but only after demanding the State force a small business owner into celebrating their marriage.

Oh, and happy Independence Day.

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, civil rights, constitution, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, first amendment, free speech, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: government, scandal, corruption, liberalism, religion, bias, left wing, censorship, political correctness, ideology, philosophy, oppression, free speech, hypocrisy, anti-religion, homosexuality, diversity, culture, bigotry, public policy, justice, nanny state, hate speech, constitution, abuse, extremism, intolerance, tragedy, discrimination, litigation, relativism, elitism, first amendment, indoctrination, bullies, civil rights, progressive

Sensitivity trumps freedom: expanded list of forbidden comments on campus

No one is denying microaggressions are real. But to deny free speech in the process is not okay. So much for free expression.

original article: Political correctness 101: Praising America, virtues of hard work dubbed ‘micro-aggression’ on campuses
July 2, 2015 by Kyle Rothenberg

Simply asking someone “Where are you from?” or calling America “the land of opportunity” is now considered offensive at some colleges and universities, where such “micro-aggressions” are detailed in training programs and seminars for new faculty and staff.

Other examples of “offensive” statements include, “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” “Affirmative action is racist,” Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” When I look at you, I don’t see color,” and “I don’t believe in race.” A full list of these “offensive” statements can be seenhere. The newly forbidden terms were initially identified in a 2007 American Psychologist publication by Columbia University’s Psychology and Education Professor Derald Wind Sue, that has now become a key training primer for incoming faculty at schools including the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

“It does students no service to treat them like children — or to threaten to punish people for starting perfectly legitimate political convictions.”

– Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein

“The only reason why we bring up the topic for our new faculty and staff is simply to make our faculty aware that students in their classrooms may perceive different statements in ways that are surprising,” said Greg Summers, provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the school, which he said does not have an official policy on microaggressions.

The relatively new term refers to small slights and snubs that may not have been intended, but may be taken as minor insults. But a backlash has begun against the policing of what was previously considered innocuous speech, with many blogs and op-ed articles online crying foul about schools adopting Sue’s controversial list.

“In well-functioning democracies and universities, feelings will sometimes be hurt,” said Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein in a Bloomberg View article. “It does students no service to treat them like children — or to threaten to punish people for starting perfectly legitimate political convictions.”

The University of California is also in the spotlight for a similar situation — where it “offered these seminars [about microaggression] to make people aware of how their words or actions may be interpreted when used in certain contexts,” University of California Media Relations Representative Shelly Meron toldFoxnews.com. But Meron insisted that no one’s freedom of speech was being trampled upon.

“To suggest that the University of California is censoring classroom discussions on our campuses is wrong and irresponsible,” Meron added.

Some members of academia disagree about microaggressions and think UC has gone too far, with one wondering whether America’s most revered civil rights leader would have run afoul of the campus code by famously stating people should be judged not by “the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

“I don’t think the University of California realizes how crazy it’s become,” Tim Groseclose, an economics professor at George Mason University who left the California system, told Foxnews.com. ”According to that document, Martin Luther King Jr. would be guilty of micro-aggressions.”

Others say microaggressions are real and must be taken seriously.

“According to psychological and public health research, microaggressions can lead to negative health consequences including heart disease, diabetes, depression and substance abuse,” said Oi Yan Poon, assistant professor of education at Loyola University in Chicago.

“These statements may seem innocent, but…they underhandedly and subtly undermine the very real experiences with racism, sexism and other forms of oppression,” Poon said.

Sue said this topic is a very complicated and controversial issue to understand because “offensive” statements like “America is the land of opportunity” is not fully understood from the perspective of a minority American citizen.

“Tell [‘America is the land of opportunity’] to black people who were enslaved and brought over here. Tell that to Native Americans who had their lands taken away from them. Tell that to Japanese Americans during World War II who were incarcerated in concentration camps…it’s inspirational to hear that type of statement from a person who truly believes it, but it is not when you look at reality and the history of the United States,” Sue said.

Do you think there should be a separation between school and state?

abuse, bullies, censorship, education, extremism, free speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, regulation, relativism

Filed under: abuse, bullies, censorship, education, extremism, free speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, regulation, relativism

So gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone else, hmm?

For the short sighted members of society who think the Supreme Court’s creation of a new right (changing what marriage means) will have no effect on anyone else, here’s a great example of what “allowing gays to marry” really means: it means forcing everyone to accept it. I guess diversity of opinion is not included in the definition of diversity. So much or pluralism, and that old fashioned First Amendment thing. original article: ABC/Univision Network Editor: Tax ‘Fanatical,’ ‘Bigoted’ Churches June 30, 2015 by Matthew Balan On Monday, Fusion senior editor Felix Salmon echoed New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer’s call for the end of the tax exemption of religious institutions, but took it one step further: he called for the specific targeting of churches that “remain steadfastly bigoted on the subject” of same-sex “marriage.” Salmon contended on Fusion.net that “if your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you’re in the wrong. And it should certainly not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption.” The former Reuters financial blogger, who left in 2014 to work for Fusion (a joint project between ABC and Univision), began his article, “Does your church ban gay marriage? Then it should start paying taxes,” by underlining that “now that the US government formally recognizes marriage equality as a fundamental right, it really shouldn’t skew the tax code so as to give millions of dollars in tax breaks to groups which remain steadfastly bigoted on the subject. I’m talking, of course, about churches.” Salmon, a native of the United Kingdom, asserted that “for all that the US Constitution mandates the separation of church and state, the two do overlap in quite a few areas…One of those areas is taxation: the US government subsidizes churches to the tune of many billions of dollars per year by giving them tax-exempt status.” He added that “it’s important to note that the tax exemption for churches and other religious organizations is not embedded in the Constitution…Taxation is a purely secular affair, and by default it applies to everybody equally, whether they’re a religious institution or not.” The Fusion senior editor argued that “it would be unconstitutional to single out religious institutions to make them pay more tax than anybody else, but the government has every right to stop giving them special tax-free privileges.” But he soon contradicted himself, as he made it clear that he supported punishing “bigoted” churches who oppose same-sex “marriage:”

It’s abundantly clear that religious institutions have no right to tax exemption. Most famously, in 1983, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status when it continued to ban interracial dating….In the Bob Jones case, the US government made a very important statement. It’s not enough, they said, to support the right of interracial couples to date and get married; it’s also important to register official disapproval of any organizations which fail to support that right. To be given exemption from paying taxes is a special privilege bestowed by the state on deserving organizations. But there’s nothing deserving about an organization which bans interracial dating. So, the state is entirely within its powers to remove that privilege. The same argument can and should be applied to gay marriage. If your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you’re in the wrong. And it should certainly not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption.

Salmon then brushed aside religious liberty concerns, and had the audacity to suggest to conservative that they should support his attack on dissenting religious groups:

We have religious freedom in this country, and any religious organization is entirely free to espouse whatever crazy views it likes. But when those views are fanatical and hurtful, they come into conflict with the views of any honorable legislator who believes in freedom and equality. And at that point, it makes perfect sense for our elected representatives to register their disapproval by abolishing the tax exemption for organizations who cling to narrow-minded and anachronistic views. Conservatives should not object. The libertarian position here is simple and clear: everybody has freedom of conscience, including religious organizations; the tax code should apply equally to all; and the government should not be in the business of “picking winners”, and deciding who does and who doesn’t qualify for tax exemptions. So, abolish tax exemption for all religious organizations, whether they support gay marriage or not. Religion is concerned with spiritual matters; when it comes to taxes, the general principle is “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”. Which is to say, give to the country’s secular monetary authorities that which you owe in tax.

The writer concluded by claiming that “it is entirely right and proper for the state to say to a church that if you want to thumb your nose at a fundamental right which is held by all Americans, then we are not going to privilege you with tax-free status. We’ll let you practice your bigotry, at least within the confines of your own church. But we’re not about to reward you for doing so.”

Contrast Salmon’s attitude with this story:

Jorge Ramos to Ted Cruz: ‘Aren’t You Discriminating’ Against Gays by Opposing SCOTUS Ruling?
July 1, 2015 by Connor Williams

or with this one:

The Shocking Proportion of Americans Who Believe That ‘Religious Institutions or Clergy’ Should Be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings
July 1, 2015 by Billy Hallowell

or this one:

HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE
J
uly 3, 2015 by John Nolte

anti-religion, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, first amendment, freedom, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, taxes

Filed under: anti-religion, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, first amendment, freedom, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, taxes

Which politician can’t figure out meetings, a fax machine, or how to get her own tea?

Is this what being in touch with the American people looks like? Smart power indeed!

original article: Email bombshells from Hillary’s secret account show she didn’t know when cabinet meetings were held, was dumbfounded by a fax machine and emailed aides to fetch her iced tea
July 1, 2015 by DAVID MARTOSKO

Hillary Clinton’s emails have been a subject of partisan finger-pointing and hand-wringing since the revelation in April that she had used a private home-brew server to store her messages during the four years she was secretary of state.
And on Tuesday the State Department released the first in a series of document-dumps comprising about 3,000 of the 55,000 pages Clinton turned over to State late last year.
They describe the ordinary and the shocking – everything from meeting recaps to the involvement in the agency of Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s 2008 election hatchet-man who had officially been exiled from the administration.
They also paint the onetime first lady and New York senator as technologically maladroit – she was all thumbs with an office fax machine – and distant enough from her husband Bill that their aides kept each informed about the other’s doings.
She used her email to let aides know she was thirsty. ‘Pls call Sarah and ask her if she can get me some iced tea,’ one message read.

And then there’s ‘Santa’ Nikkels– the Chappaqua, N.Y. hairdresser on Clinton’s meeting schedule who kept her from making it to the airport on time.

‘I’m seeing Santa at 8:30,’ she wrote her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin six months after taking office, ‘so [we] won’t take off until closer to 9:30.’

Buried in the din of thousands of people devouring the emails Tuesday night, though, was something more ominous for Clinton insiders: news that the State Department had decided to treat some two dozen of the messages as ‘classified’ – ruling as lawyers vetted the material that some of it was too sensitive to expose publicly.

Clinton and her campaign surrogates insisted beginning in April that her private email server was never a national security risk and never housed classified documents.

But State spokesman Alex Gerlach acknowledged Tuesday night that ‘portions of 25 emails were subsequently upgraded’ to the classification level ‘confidential’ – a notch below ‘secret.’

WHO'S SANTA? The mysterious character in the Clinton saga could be a hairdresser, a trainer, a Secret Service agent or even a dog-sitter but the State Department isn't saying 

WHO’S SANTA? The mysterious character in the Clinton saga could be a hairdresser, a trainer, a Secret Service agent or even a dog-sitter but the State Department isn’t saying

THIRSTY: Hillary Clinton got so comfortable with email that by late 2009 she was using it to tell aides to bring her iced tea 

THIRSTY: Hillary Clinton got so comfortable with email that by late 2009 she was using it to tell aides to bring her iced tea

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her Blackberry phone alongside Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan in November 2011 while on an official trip to South Korea 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her Blackberry phone alongside Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan in November 2011 while on an official trip to South Korea

‘It is routine to upgrade information to classified status during the FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act] process,’ he said.

The emails show that there was nothing routine, however, about the relationship between Clinton’s State Department and her ‘old friend’ Sidney Blumenthal, the man who flung spears at Barack Obama on her behalf throughout the bruising 2008 Democratic presidential campaign season.

Blumenthal was unofficially exiled from the Obama administration because the White House saw him as untrustworthy. Hillary tried, unsuccessfuly, to hire him anyway.

When she hit a dead end, Clinton put him on payroll with her family foundation at a rate of $10,000 per month.

From that perch, he sent Hillary a steady stream of intelligence briefings on Libya, including some around the time of the deadly 2012 terror attacks.

During an Iowa campaign stop in May, Clinton told reporters that Blumenthal had sent her ‘unsolicited emails’ containing advice.

But in 2009 she was in regular contact with him to ask for his counsel, the latest released emails show.

‘Are you still awake?’ she emailed him at 10:35 one October night. ‘I will call if you are.’

3,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails released

WHAT'S THAT SCREECHING SOUND? It took 15 minutes for a Clinton senior staffer to teach her why it?s a bad idea to take a fax machine's handset off the hook when someone is trying to send a fax 

WHAT’S THAT SCREECHING SOUND? It took 15 minutes for a Clinton senior staffer to teach her why it?s a bad idea to take a fax machine’s handset off the hook when someone is trying to send a fax

JUST LIKE US! Clinton and her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin discussed weighty matters of state like which private jet to reserve for a trip

JUST LIKE US! Clinton and her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin discussed weighty matters of state like which private jet to reserve for a trip

Clinton has also sought to downplay any thought that she was actually using information from Blumenthal in her work.

But on at least one occasion, she passed his thoughts to her most senior aides.

‘The speechwriting crew is taking Sid’s points below and massaging them into a set of remarks,’ her policy planning chief Jake Sullivan told her in an email.

The ‘Sid’ factor threatens to proide Clinton’s opponents with ammunition against her in 2016.

He was gathering intelligence for her on the sly, outside the regular chain of command, and with no legal oversight. He was also being paid by the same Clinton Foundation that was simultaneously accepting multimillion-dollar donations from foreign companies and governments.

Blumenthal also tried to get Hillary interested in an ultimately unsuccessful scheme to elect former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the presidency of the European Council. ‘Tony is somewhat downcast on his chances,’ Blumenthal wrote, suggesting Clinton might ‘weigh in’ with top European diplomats on his behalf.

‘Your part in this may yet be important,’ he wrote.

State Department released first set of Clinton emails in May

Emailer: While her husband does not use the medium, according to his staff, Hillary did
Huma Abedin who is Hillary Clinton's vice chairwoman of her 2016 campaign for President

Correspondence: The majority of the emails loop in Huma Abedin who is Hillary Clinton’s vice chairwoman of her 2016 campaign for President

Blumenthal’s deep-burrowed connections in Clintonland are old news, but the number of people who managed to keep Clinton’s private email address a secret is surprising.

Despite the collective shock inside the D.C. beltway when news of the off-the-books account surfaced, many of Washington’s most influential Democrats were already in on it.

Political operative David Axelrod had her email address almost from the start, specifically asking her chief of staff for it in 2009, but claimed just weeks ago that he was unaware of it.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote to her at the now-infamous ‘HDR22@clintonemail.com.’

So did outgoing Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski; socialite 1-percenter Lynn Forester de Rothschild; Bill Clinton-era former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife Cherie; retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark; liberal think tank chief John Podesta of the Center for American Progress; and lawyer-lobbyist Lanny Davis – who was later shamed for taking millions from West African strongmen.

In one of the odder exchanges, Clinton urged Podesta to ‘please wear socks to bed to keep your feet warm’.

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM HILLARY CLINTON’S STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS RELEASED TUESDAY

1. Many of Washington’s most influential Democrats had Hillary’s secret address, including political operatives like David Axelrod, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski and liberal think tank chief John Podesta

2. Bill and Hillary Clinton apparently communicated through surrogates, with one Bill insider telling Hillary’s chief of staff to let her know her husband had accepted a role as UN Special Envoy to Haiti

3. The State Department’s top diplomatic protocol officer crowed to Hillary that an email contest run by political consultant Paul Begala helped her retire $500,000 of her campaign debt from the 2008 presidential race

4. Hillary’s deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin pressed her to make tough decisions, like whether to delay a trip departure for three hours so she could take a larger private jet

5. The State Department was worried that reporters would discover Sidney Blumenthal, a Hillary campaign hatchet-man banned from the agency by President Obama, was still secretly advising her – and Blumenthal managed to spill he beans to an Associated Press reporter without knowing who he was talking to

6. Despite later claiming Blumenthal’s frequent email memos were ‘unsolicited’ and of little value, Hillary later made some of his suggestions part of her foreign policy speeches

7. In June 2009 Hillary learned from a radio broadcast that President Obama was about to hold a cabinet meeting; she emailed her scheduler to ask ‘Can I go?’

DISTANT: When Bill Clinton accepted a United Nations offer to serve as a special envoy to Haiti, he never told his wife. The news reached her after Bill's aide told Hillary's aide

DISTANT: When Bill Clinton accepted a United Nations offer to serve as a special envoy to Haiti, he never told his wife. The news reached her after Bill’s aide told Hillary’s aide

Also in the loop was Brian Greenspun, the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun – a newspaper that endorsed Clinton in 2008.

The Sun published a story shortly after Clinton launched her campaign, advising her on how to avoid repeating her Democratic primary collapse of eight years ago.

‘Excite Latinos and Asian-Americans,’ the paper’s reporter wrote, and ‘Take advantage of the Harry Reid machine.’

The emails released Tuesday night cover the calendar year 2009, when there was not yet any inkling of what would happen three years later in the Libyan city of Benghazi.

Republicans have bet a slice of their election credibility on the premise that Clinton’s incompetence opened the door to the 2012 terror attack there that killed a U.S. ambassador; and that her Machiavellian scheming was central to a cover-up of the nature of the attack just weeks before Obama stood for re-election.

Even when State Department lawyers have vetted every page, journalists and lawmakers may never know what Clinton deleted from the public record.

She claimed in April that she scrubbed the server of more than 31,000 emails which she deemed ‘personal’ in nature.

Twitter let out a collective guffaw Tuesday night in the direction of a December 2009 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin – who invested 15 minutes trying to teach her boss how the handset on a fax machine worked.

Exclusive: Santa's Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.
Exclusive: Santa's Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.

Exclusive: Santa’s Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.

Arm's length: Bill Clinton in Oslo, Norway, today with Norwegian foreign minister Boerge Brende. The emails show he and Hillary often communicated to each other through their aides.

Arm’s length: Bill Clinton in Oslo, Norway, today with Norwegian foreign minister Boerge Brende. The emails show he and Hillary often communicated to each other through their aides.

‘Can you hang up the fax line?’ Abedin wrote. ‘They will call again and try fax.’

‘I thought it was supposed to be off [the] hook to work?’ Clinton responded.

‘Yes,’ Abedin wrote, ‘but hang up one more time. So they can establish the line.’

‘I did,’ Clinton replied.

‘Just pick up [the] phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up,’ Abedin shot back.

‘I’ve done it twice now,’ replied a befuddled Hillary.

It was Abedin who emailed Clinton in July 2009 to ask her about her preferred travel arrangements when a private jet wasn’t available as planned.

What to do? Wait an extra three hours for a 19-passenger Gulfstream III aircraft, or settle for the six-seat Learjet that’s fueled and ready?

‘The g3 is delayed till 5pm wheels up,’ Abedin wrote her. ‘There is a lear available at 2pm with 6 seats. Do u want to just leave at 5?’

In other instances it was chief of staff Cheryl Mills who shed light on Clinton’s life.

When former president Bill Clinton agreed to serve as the United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti following a devastating 2009 earthquake, he didn’t tell her.

It was Bill’s trusted aide Doug Band who told Mills: ‘Wjc [Bill] just told SecGen [Ban Ki-moon] that he would do Haiti special envoy,’ Band wrote her.

‘Wjc said he was going to call hrc [Hillary] but hasn’t had time.’

Mills ricocheted the message to her own deputy in two minutes’ time.

‘You need to walk this to HRC if she is not gone,’ Mills wrote aide Nora Toiv. ‘I am also going to give WH [the White House] heads up.’

While nothing in Tuesday night’s release validates the GOP’s hope for evidence that Hillary is crooked or misused her office, another top State Department official may have violated federal election law.

How many want to be president? The emails revealed that Tony Blair (second from left with his wife Cherie in 1998) felt his bid to be president of the European Council was floundering. Sidney Blumenthal urged Hillary to support her and former President Clinton's old friend in his campaign, which ultimately failed

How many want to be president? The emails revealed that Tony Blair (second from left with his wife Cherie in 1998) felt his bid to be president of the European Council was floundering. Sidney Blumenthal urged Hillary to support her and former President Clinton’s old friend in his campaign, which ultimately failed

Chief Protocol Officer Capricia Penavic Marshall emailed Democratic political consultant Paul Begala – and another recipient whose name the State Department redacted – to thank him for helping raise a half-million dollars to pay Clinton’s bills from her failed presidential run.

‘We raised $500K from the email contest!!,’ Marshall wrote. ‘You all are amazing – the world adores you! You put a serious hole in hrc debt!’

Federal law forbids government employees from using taxpayer-funded resources, including office computers and other devices, in connection with political fundraising – even if the money collected goes to retire old campaign costs.

‘What we learned tonight is troubling,’ Republican National Committee chairman Reice Priebus said in a statement Tuesday night.

‘Administration officials knew more than previously disclosed, Sidney Blumenthal was involved with more than just providing Libya off-the-books intelligence, and State Department officials were possibly fundraising on government accounts.’

Priebus called the revelations ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ and joined congressional Republicans in demanding that she hand over to independent investigators the actual computer hardware that once held the messages.

In correspondence with the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Clinton’s attorney has insisted that’s not going to happen.

 

campaign, Democrats, elections, humor, politics, progressive, scandal

Filed under: campaign, Democrats, elections, humor, politics, progressive, scandal

Selective respect for academic freedom in higher education

The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Andy Thomason supports academic freedom. In How One Professor’s Tweets Got Her Fired — or So It Seemed at First Thomas makes no bones about his opinion: academic freedom should be respected no matter how racist a woman of color (Zandria Robinson) may be. The University of Memphis’s questionable handling of the situation is secondary; Thomason clearly thinks academic freedom is the essential element of the debate here, not Ms. Robinson’s racism. This is different from the plain, matter-of-fact reporting about another incident where a student hung a noose on a civil rights statue at the University of Mississippi. In both cases someone expresses overt racism out side of the academic setting (not in class, not in any official capacity of a university function). But, the woman of color gets a pass and the white student gets punished.

Saida Grundy, another racist (and sexist) woman of color working at an American university, who also happened to express vile hatred and racism via social media, also drummed up a little storm but also got a total pass from her employer and from the Cronicle of Higher Education where Thomason again has no criticism for the racism of the instructor in question, but certainly makes a plug for academic freedom by quoting a Boston U official whose more concerned about allowing anti-white racist professors “latitude to express their opinions and provoke discussion” and “supporting a new colleague”.

But, as is common knowledge, former Harvard president Lawrence Summers lost his job (as president of Harvard University) because of comments that, by many, were deemed sexist. Why the outrage there? What happened to academic freedom there?

An athletic coach at U of North Carolina gets fired after working to defend men accused of rape (given the almost complete absence of due process for the accused). The university claims his firing pertains to the athletic team’s performance over the years, and has nothing to do with his advocacy for the men he’s trying to help. So we are apparently supposed to take the university’s word for it, rather than assume the worst. But if someone accuses white males of rape, oh there’s no need to verify any facts or anything, is there?

Apparently there are different standards in place. If you’re a white male, even if you hold and promote a progressive world view, there is very little forgiveness for you. But if you’re black or female (especially black and female) you can be as venomous and hateful as you want and you’ll suffer no professional set back because of it. In higher education, academic freedom means nothing in the former situation, but it means everything in the latter. Privilege is a wonderful thing. Never mind of education itself is corrupted in the process.

Do you think there should be a separation between school and state?

bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, elitism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal, sexism

Filed under: bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, elitism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, scandal, sexism

Polygamy, Gay Marriage, and the Role of Government

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Since I’m a bit old-fashioned, I think polygamy is rather weird.

And it would also be a practical nightmare. Thinking about it from a guy’s perspective, imagine having to remember multiple birthdays and anniversaries?

Not to mention dealing with a more complicated approval process if you want to get permission to join another softball league or take an out-of-town trip!

To be fair, polygamy could also mean one wife and multiple husbands, but what woman would want to subject herself to that burden?!?

She wouldn’t even know who to blame if she found the toilet seat in the up position.

But let’s look at the issue from a more serious perspective, especially because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage.

In a column for Politico, Fredrik deBoer argues that polygamists should also be allowed to marry.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope…

View original 875 more words

Filed under: Uncategorized

Student Bullied by Anti-Religious Hostility at University of Wisconsin

original article: Student Bullied by Anti-Religious Hostility at University of Wisconsin
June 24, 2015 by Liberty Counsel

Baraboo, WI – Liberty Counsel demanded the University of Wisconsin reverse its professor’s viewpoint discrimination and open hostility toward religion that occurred when Professor Annette Kuhlman threatened her student, Rachel Langeberg, with a failing grade for a group project unless she removed a Bible reference from a class presentation at the University of Wisconsin-Baraboo/Sauk County.

When reviewing Langeberg’s sociology group project, Professor Kuhlman wrote, “…the University of Wisconsin is a secular institution. Religious contemplations and the bible [sic] belong to a different realm and not academic sources. So your argumentation along Christian lines, including the slides you designed in relation to it, are [sic] inappropriate for this presentation. I will not allow you to present unless you change this. You will also fail your presentation if your discuss religion in connection with it.” After Ms. Langeberg tried to resolve the matter by meeting with the professor and Dean Tracy White, to no avail, she contacted Liberty Counsel.

“Dr. Kuhlman’s review crossed the line from scholarship to censorship,” said Liberty Counsel Attorney Richard Mast. On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has upheld students’ First Amendment rights in the public schools. The Constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Lynch v. Donnelly. Moreover, “teachers must be sensitive to students’ personal beliefs and take care not to abuse their positions of authority.” Farnan v. Capistrano.

“Students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they sign up for classes at the University of Wisconsin,” said Mast. “It is blatantly unconstitutional to restrict student religious speech or threaten a failing grade for religious content, where the speech or content is otherwise academically appropriate for the assignment,” Mast concluded.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

We need a separation between school and state.

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, christian, discrimination, education, first amendment, free speech, freedom, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, oppression, political correctness, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, separation

Filed under: abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, christian, discrimination, education, first amendment, free speech, freedom, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, oppression, political correctness, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, separation

Why is there so much fraud in pro-gay research?

It is a testament to the power of propaganda to see how the gay agenda has successfully shut down debate in the name of freedom. Any disagreement about the new definition of marriage, any question about the nature of biology is quickly met with derision or even discrimination. People have lost their jobs over having a politically incorrect opinion of gay marriage (even when no actual anti-gay discrimination occurred). Because tolerance, or something.

So while bullying and abuse are frequently used on one side of the coin of “gay rights”, on the other side we have fraudulent propaganda.

Researcher accused of fraud in gay marriage study responds to critics

Science journal retracts gay-marriage study after evidence of fraud

Journal Science updated its guidelines because of LaCour’s fraud

Homosexual Fakes Support by Defaming Local Churches

Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked

It says a lot about a movement that must rely on lies and bullying to promote itself. We are ironically told by gay marriage supporters to “think”. Well, I am thinking. That’s the problem. Actually thinking through these issues does not naturally lead to the conclusion gay activists want. So dissent has to be shut down. Any differing opinion must be silenced. Threats and coercion are perfectly viable methods of promoting this great cause. Only a pro-gay marriage attitude is allowed. Any diversity of thought is to be ridiculed as bigotry or hate. Because, tolerance.

The media’s positive treatment of gays, rooted in a shameful past

Author’s Views on Gay Marriage Fuel Call for Boycott

Age of intolerance: What the Indiana pizza attacks tell us about free speech

Chick-fil-A Thrust Back Into Spotlight on Gay Rights

Newspaper faces firestorm after attempted crack-down on anti-gay marriage op-eds

So gay marriage is here. What happens next? Now that we’ve invited the government back into the bedroom, where does it go from here?

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, fraud, free speech, freedom, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, science, study

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, fraud, free speech, freedom, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, science, study

Pages

Categories

July 2015
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 179 other followers