Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Another Candidate For Stupidest Article Ever

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person
A manifesto.

Allison Benedikt

"You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better."
Yes. Sacrifice your child for the Common Good, as Leftists define it... or you are bad. Probably an Oppressor Class identity.

This article inspired an all new category: Stupidest Articles Ever.

More on Iraqi WMDs

More Borak rockets with higher concentrations of Sarin have been found. Much of the collection of Iraqi WMDs has been done by the CIA and is still secret for some unknown reason. The public finds out about these WMDs only through oblique channels, it appears. But it is clear that Sadam's WMDs did exist and were not destroyed, regardless of claims that they had been.

Fred, On The "Ballmer Riots"

Ballmer: A Race War in Slow Motion

The Talking-Heads Chorale will see the riots, are seeing the riots, not as an intensification of the undeclared racial war, but as a protest against racist police or the racism of whites. Oh, quite. Never mind that Ballmer’s black government sets standards for the hiring, training, and behavior of its police, and half of the accused cops are black. But the conduct of their police cannot be the fault of blacks, because nothing is.

Ominous for the future, though, is the solidarity of blacks in favor of the looters and arsonists. Our black president Obama, protecting his people, attributes the riots to racism and Republicans. Black leaders, e.g. Al Sharpton, see the villainy of whites as the cause. (I am inclined to agree that the riots involved racism, considering that black rioters reportedly burned chiefly Asian businesses.) The city’s black mayor first said “give them space” to loot. Later she told the police to stand down and let the rioters loot and burn. She has the intelligence of a raisin, but she knows whose side she is on. She isn’t alone. Supportive riots and attacks on whites, e.g. in Charleston have occurred.


Third, burned-out business will not return to be burned again. The city will thus have fewer jobs, fewer amenities, and no pharmacy, as they sacked and torched their CVS outlet. The Chorale will attribute this withdrawal to racism, slavery, oppression, White Privilege, and microaggressions. What else could account for not wanting one’s store burned?

In particular, blacks, having burned their pharmacy, will complain that it isn’t there. They will not see a connection between its burning it and its not-thereness. The Chorale will not see in this behavior low intelligence, short time-horizons, and inability to control impulses or to foresee consequences. No. It is the ineradicable racism of whites that makes a burned pharmacy not be there.

Two hundred businesses destroyed in Baltimore: Breitbart: . This makes sense. When something happens that I don't like, I usually go to the local Walmart, steal everything I can carry, and then burn the store. Don't you? What is really comic though is from Larry Hogan, the governor of Maryland: It “will take a little while to get back to normal, but let’s get people back to normal, get people back in the city to visit devastated shops.” Since many of those shps didn't have barbaric-population insurance, they will not reopn, and if they do, it won't be in black Ballmer.Which is what the city deserve.
As always, go to the LINK, and enjoy the photo too.

The Left's Confusion About Racism... And Other Things

America’s Literary Elite Takes a Bold Stand Against Dead Journalists

"It was an odd sight; gauche caviar left-wing writers aligning themselves against slain soixante-huitard left-wing cartoonists, all while expressing sympathy with “devout” religious conservatives “humiliated” and “suffering” because of silly drawings from a low-circulation satirical newspaper.

Some PEN members pulled out of the event. At least one publicly threatened to quit. Others said that while they would attend the gala, the still-mourning Thoret would be treated like Elia Kazan at the Academy Awards, with the objectors remaining seated, grim-faced, hands folded in their laps.

Charlie Hebdo—scourge of the post-fascist political party Front National, enemy of Papists, cheerful anti-racist activists, fellow travelers of the French Communist Party, staunch agitators for Palestine—has been accused of racism and employing crude and offensive satire to “punch down” at an aggrieved minority.

So while we can all agree that the right to free speech is indivisible, is Charlie a racist? Click around a bit—no French skills required—and you’ll find out that Charlie is Stormfront with colorful cartoons, a modern Der Stürmer-like tabloid, but one supposedly marinated in the politics of the old-guard left. A day after the attack, Slate’s Jordan Weissmann did a bit of Googling and discovered that those comparing the dead to “white power” activists had something of a point. Two days after the murders, under the crass headline “Unmournable Bodies,” The New Yorker’s Teju Cole provided a confused exegesis on French satire, a subject he has previously avoided discussing. Charlie Hebdo, he wrote, was possessed of a “bullyingly racist agenda” and traded in “violently racist” images.

Elsewhere, the #JeSuisCharlie brigades were admonished for affiliating with an anti-Arab magazine whose “staff was white,” a point not contested by editor Moustapha Ourrad because he had annoyingly just been murdered by religious psychopaths. Nor did Zineb El Rhazoui protest, likely because she was too busy mourning her dead friends and cobbling together the newspaper’s first post-bloodbath issue. Francine Prose, one of the first refuseniks, said PEN’s choice “very conveniently feeds into a larger political narrative of white Europeans being killed by Muslim extremists, which is not the case,” a point with which the families of slain Hebdo staffers might take issue.

Even those vigorously defending the PEN decision assimilated the racism narrative. Rob Spillman, head of PEN’s membership committee, defended the Charlie Hebdo decision while, just to be safe, dismissing the paper as “gleefully racist.”

There is no need to relitigate the main points in Charlie Hebdo’s defense. The context of those cartoons stupidly flagged as bigoted has been explained by a number of baffled French observers. And ask yourself: Should you trust the judgments of newly minted French satire experts, most of whom don’t speak French and have never held a copy of the newspaper? Or should you trust Dominique Sopo, the Togolese-French president of SOS-Racisme, France’s most celebrated anti-racism organization, who made the obvious point that Charlie Hebdo was the “most anti-racist newspaper” in the country? Those accusing his murdered friends of supporting the very things they so passionately opposed, Sopo said, were either motivated by “stupidity or intellectual dishonesty...Every week in Charlie Hebdo—every week—half of it was against racism, against anti-Semitism, against anti-Muslim hatred.”

Indeed, the assumption, repeated ad nauseam since January, that the newspaper was “obsessed” with Islam was effectively rubbished by two French academics writing in Le Monde, who pointed out that in the last decade only seven of 523 covers Hebdo covers dealt with Islam. Twenty-one attacked Christianity. Having extensively reviewed the paper’s political content, they delivered a straightforward verdict: Charlie Hebdo was “undeniably an anti-racist” publication. And barely mentioned by either critics or supporters of the PEN decision was the small detail that when the shooting began, the Charlie Hebdo staff members were discussing their participation in an upcoming anti-racism conference."
The Left seem to equate Islam with a specific race, which is a racist concept that is easily dispelled. Palestinians, Iranians, Turks, Malaysians are not all Arabs, I'm sure it would surprise the Leftist "intellectuals" to know. What is actually being defended by the Left is a totalitarian political-religious polyglot of sects with one thing in common: the hideous example of the "perfect life of Muhammad", a man for whom no action was forbidden.

That is what the Left has in common with Islam. For the Left, they alone dictate morality. And that is subject to change depending on the situation and what result the Left needs at the moment. Under those fickle non-rules, nothing is forbidden to the Left, and every action is available. The only constant Leftist moral principle is the necessary hatred for the Other, the dissenters, who are defined as Evil for their crime of dissent, condemned and to be shunned at a minimum, eliminated as possible. Hebdo was a dissenter from all dogma of every variety. The elimination of Hebdo was moral, and that it was done by the perpetual Victimhood Class made the murders moral, as natural Victimhood reactions to their persecution. Hebdo was the Other. So the killers were the victims, not Hebdo... by Leftist definition and moral diktat.

So for moral consistency, the Leftist moral elitists must object to any praise for their common enemy: those who disagree with them and their allies. Note that this disagreement is about Freedom vs. dictated "morality". The Left is NOT for freedom.


Charlie Hebdo Receives Free Speech Award, Standing Ovation at PEN Gala

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

When The Irrational Are In Charge

Why Yes Can Mean No
And it is true that there is no truth; morals are immoral; Identity within a human class is more important than the "content of your character"; Character development is too hard for some people; science does not require any actual evidence in order to be immutable Truth (and denial is evil); There is no evil (except as dictated by Leftist diktat); Victimhood Classes cannot be racist/sexist/murdering/raping/rioting/hoodlums because of their identities as perpetual Victims; The Other must be silenced at all cost, because their existence is a microaggression against those without the spine to live in the actual world.

Defending Second Amendment Rights

On April 30, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed Senate Bill 1110—a bill which bars state cooperation with federal gun control laws.

"Sponsored by Senator Richard Briggs (R-Dist. 7), SB 1110 “prohibits the use of any public funds, personnel, or property to enforce any federal law or regulation that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories.”

SB 1110 passed the house by a margin of 74 to 20 and the senate by a margin of 24 to 1.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the measure was “originally introduced in the House as HB1341 by Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver.” At that time, Weaver said, “I’m from the cut that there is no need for Washington D.C. to be the end all and be all with regards to the regulatory world. We should respect our 10th Amendment and shift the power back to the states and that’s what House Bill 1341 does.”

What was true for HB 1341 is also true for SB 1110.

This law comes on the heels of another blow to federal gun control signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) last week. On April 29, Pence signed Senate Bill 433—a bill that “repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun.”

SB 433 addresses the ban on short barreled, modified shotguns and will also present a challenge to the federal government’s “title II firearm” policy requiring registration fees and transfer records each time the firearm changes hands."
This sort of civil disobedience is constitutionally prescribed. Every state should do this and not merely for the Second Amendment... but for all freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Three Quotes For Today

"HOW LOW CAN THEY GO? NBC Anchor: Geller Caused Texas Shooting Herself, by Setting Muslim ‘Mousetrap.’ Well, if NBC wants to risk charges of racism by calling Muslims vermin. . . ."

"Meanwhile, [Leftist political Doonesbury cartoonist] Trudeau and the PEN dissidents have a very funny definition of courage. Trudeau has won awards and wealth by taking at best droll and more often clichéd potshots at Republicans at no personal risk to himself whatsoever. But he thinks it is cowardly to openly defy those who are eager to murder the mockers."

"HEH: Note to Jihadists: In America, we shoot back. “It turned out those practicing their First Amendment rights were protected by those practicing their Second Amendment rights.”

All From Instapundit.
Personally I think that it is essential to use bacon coated ammunition, and to blow their balls off first so that their 72 Virgins just laugh at them. I also think that a fatwa (or whatever sort of revelation) stating authoritatively that they don't get 72 Virgins, they actually get one 72 year old virgin lesbian would set them back a bit.

Great Title For A Book...

...And for a political movement!
By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission

"American freedom is being gutted. Whether we are trying to run a business, practice a vocation, raise our families, cooperate with our neighbors, or follow our religious beliefs, we run afoul of the government—not because we are doing anything wrong but because the government has decided it knows better. When we object, that government can and does tell us, “Try to fight this, and we’ll ruin you.”

In this provocative book, acclaimed social scientist and bestselling author Charles Murray shows us why we can no longer hope to roll back the power of the federal government through the normal political process. The Constitution is broken in ways that cannot be fixed even by a sympathetic Supreme Court. Our legal system is increasingly lawless, unmoored from traditional ideas of “the rule of law.” The legislative process has become systemically corrupt no matter which party is in control.

But there’s good news beyond the Beltway. "
I haven't read this book, but I will.

Victimhood's Rights

What Didn’t Happen Next

"A couple of ISIS wannabes tried to shoot up an exhibition of cartoons in Garland, Texas, and the police put them down before the civilians could get to them: a triumph for duty and marksmanship. What didn’t happen next?

There is a mosque in Garland, Texas. It was there yesterday, it’s there today, and it will be there tomorrow. After two radical Muslims attempted to massacre some infidels down the road a bit, there was no angry mob of Texans storming the place with F-350s and rifles. If any vehicle full of armed men rushed to the Muslims’ place of worship, you can be sure that it was the local police exercising an abundance of caution and nothing more.

It’s easy to be snarky–”Oh, yay for us! No massacre, give Texas a cookie!” But only those parochial minds with the narrowest of experience could fail to appreciate how unusual that is in the world."
Only Islamists and Black racists are interested in destruction of the Other, in today's world. But they blame their destruction on the Other in their self-justification of immorality. They are supported in this by their handler's, the AtheoLeftist Messiah Class.

There is something else which didn't happen: the Muslim community did not become incensed at the use of their religion in this attack. However, I'll concede this: a community is not necessarily responsible for the aberration of a few of its members. This was true of the killing of Tiller the Killer abortionist of full term babies, and of the Westboro Baptists. These people do not represent their communities. But their communities are different from the Islamic and Black Racists; Christianity does not blame one's own moral failures on anyone else, it places the blame for moral failure on the individual, to be faced with that responsibility in the ultimate face to face with the Christian deity.

Not so with either the Islamists or the Black Racists. They are justified in whatever immoral and violent acts in which they indulge themselves by placing the blame on the Other. If the Other would only give them what they want - drugs AND jobs, say, or ALL of Israel - THEN they would be happy and quit their immoral, antisocial behaviors. They are not responsible; they are Victims, and cannot ever, ever, be blamed for their destruction of cities or attacks on civilians. Immorality is a Victim's Right.

And returning to the Muslim community, the entire Islamic worldwide community is assigned Victimhood Status. They have no need to object to the alleged misuse of Islam by murders. The murderers are already covered by their Classist presumption of Victimhood Immunity for any actions taken against the Oppressor Class. And being immune from responsibility for their actions, there is no need to address the issue, either as a class or leaders within a class.

Islamists still bleat about their "religion of peace" and misunderstanding of their Qur'an and whatever. And that still and forever rings of falsehood and irrationality. As does the Black Racism charges against police who deal with black bullies and chronic miscreants. Islamists and Black Racists are fully entitled, purely by their identities and class.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Evil Science

University of Hawaii Carrying Out Controversial Abortion Experiments on Minors

"The Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children at the University of Hawaii is currently recruiting pregnant girls and women to participate in second-trimester abortions to measure their bleeding during the operation, with and without antihemorrhagic drugs. According to the Clinical Trials website, run by the National Institutes of Health, participants must be at least 14 years old and 18-24 weeks pregnant.

The controversial study, led by Bliss Kaneshiro, MD and Kate Whitehouse, DO, will monitor bleeding during D&E abortions to determine the effects of the drug oxytocin, commonly used to minimize blood loss and decrease the risk of hemorrhage.

The clinical trial, called “Effects of Oxytocin on Bleeding Outcomes during Dilation and Evacuation” began in October 2014 and is a collaboration between UH, Society of Family Planning and the University of Washington.

The Society of Family Planning funds a number of similar research projects, such as experimenting with the dosage of Misoprostol, a uterine contracting agent, prior to surgical abortions at 13-18 weeks and exploring umbilical cord injections to produce fetal death prior to late-term abortions.

In the UH study, researchers will carry out a “randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials,” to determine the effect of oxytocin’s use on uterine bleeding, meaning that they will either provide or deny intravenous oxytocin to the women.

Reports suggest that some doctors are concerned that withholding oxytocin during surgery may put patients, especially teen girls, at risk.

“This study is reminiscent of Nazi concentration camp experiments. I pity the poor women who are being treated like lab rats, especially those who are denied the drug to reduce hemorrhaging,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.

Dilation and evacuation abortions are surgical procedures that involve dismembering the pre-born baby with forceps, scraping the inside of the uterus with a curette to remove any residuals and finally suctioning out the womb to make sure the contents are completely removed.

After the abortion, the corpse of the fetus is reassembled and examined to ensure everything was successfully removed and that the abortion was complete.

The study is hoping to attract up to 166 test subjects and is expected to conclude in July 2015."
This is a direct Consequence of the court's Roe v Wade, along with Scientism, the worship of science. And yes, it is very reminiscent of Mengele's NAZI experiments, with death involved in every one.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Well, There Goes The Moon...

Europe's Next Space Chief Wants a Moon Colony on the Lunar Far Side
Jews had best stay on earth, where it's easier to get to Israel in a pinch. No telling what they want to do on the side that's not visible from Paris.

Yeah. That'll Stop It.

Venezuela raises minimum wage 30 pct amid raging inflation

A Review Which I Had Missed Should NOT Be Missed

I missed this scathing review in NYT of Daniel Dennett and his “Breaking The Spell” book from nearly a decade ago. Executed with finesse by Leon Wieseltier, who is (or possibly was) the literary editor of The New Republic.
” In his own opinion, Dennett is a hero. He is in the business of emancipation, and he reveres himself for it. "By asking for an accounting of the pros and cons of religion, I risk getting poked in the nose or worse," he declares, "and yet I persist." Giordano Bruno, with tenure at Tufts! He wonders whether religious people "will have the intellectual honesty and courage to read this book through." If you disagree with what Dennett says, it is because you fear what he says. Any opposition to his scientistic deflation of religion he triumphantly dismisses as "protectionism." But people who share Dennett's view of the world he calls "brights." Brights are not only intellectually better, they are also ethically better. Did you know that "brights have the lowest divorce rate in the United States, and born-again Christians the highest"? Dennett's own "sacred values" are "democracy, justice, life, love and truth." This rigs things nicely. If you refuse his "impeccably hardheaded and rational ontology," then your sacred values must be tyranny, injustice, death, hatred and falsehood. Dennett is the sort of rationalist who gives reason a bad name; and in a new era of American obscurantism, this is not helpful.

Dennett flatters himself that he is Hume's heir. Hume began "The Natural History of Religion," a short incendiary work that was published in 1757, with this remark: "As every enquiry which regards religion is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature." These words serve as the epigraph to Dennett's introduction to his own conception of "religion as a natural phenomenon." "Breaking the Spell" proposes to answer Hume's second question, not least as a way of circumventing Hume's first question. Unfortunately, Dennett gives a misleading impression of Hume's reflections on religion. He chooses not to reproduce the words that immediately follow those in which he has just basked: "Happily, the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least, the clearest, solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."

So was Hume not a bright? I do not mean to be pedantic. Hume deplored religion as a source of illusions and crimes, and renounced its consolations even as he was dying. His God was a very wan god. But his God was still a god; and so his theism is as true or false as any other theism. The truth of religion cannot be proved by showing that a skeptic was in his way a believer, or by any other appeal to authority. There is no intellectually honorable surrogate for rational argument. Dennett's misrepresentation of Hume (and his similar misrepresentation of William James and Thomas Nagel) is noteworthy, therefore, because it illustrates his complacent refusal to acknowledge the dense and vital relations between religion and reason, not only historically but also philosophically.”

There is an intermediate elaboration on Dennett’s all new Just So Story, which he calls “biological thinking” (a great way to look at such fabrications). That is followed by this:
” It will be plain that Dennett's approach to religion is contrived to evade religion's substance. He thinks that an inquiry into belief is made superfluous by an inquiry into the belief in belief. This is a very revealing mistake. You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason. In this profound sense, Dennett does not believe in reason. He will be outraged to hear this, since he regards himself as a giant of rationalism. But the reason he imputes to the human creatures depicted in his book is merely a creaturely reason. Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else. (In this respect, rationalism is closer to mysticism than it is to materialism.) Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”
Then there is this coup d’ gras, upon which the underlying fallacy of Dennett’s entire intellectual existence is laid open, and the internal contradiction is ripped out for viewing:
” Like many biological reductionists, Dennett is sure that he is not a biological reductionist. But the charge is proved as early as the fourth page of his book. Watch closely. "Like other animals," the confused passage begins, "we have built-in desires to reproduce and to do pretty much whatever it takes to achieve this goal." No confusion there, and no offense. It is incontrovertible that we are animals. The sentence continues: "But we also have creeds, and the ability to transcend our genetic imperatives." A sterling observation, and the beginning of humanism. And then more, in the same fine antideterministic vein: "This fact does make us different."

Then suddenly there is this: "But it is itself a biological fact, visible to natural science, and something that requires an explanation from natural science." As the ancient rabbis used to say, have your ears heard what your mouth has spoken? Dennett does not see that he has taken his humanism back. Why is our independence from biology a fact of biology? And if it is a fact of biology, then we are not independent of biology. If our creeds are an expression of our animality, if they require an explanation from natural science, then we have not transcended our genetic imperatives. The human difference, in Dennett's telling, is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind — a doctrine that may quite plausibly be called biological reductionism.”

[Emphasis added]
There is much more, before these excerpts as well as after. Read it there, it is on the money.

Well, I just can't resist this part:
"Dennett is unable to imagine a fact about us that is not a biological fact. His book is riddled with translations of emotions and ideas into evo-psychobabble. "It is in the genetic interests of parents . . . to inform — not misinform — their young, so it is efficient (and relatively safe) to trust one's parents." Grief for the death of a loved one is "a major task of cognitive updating: revising all our habits of thought to fit a world with one less familiar intentional system in it." "Marriage rituals and taboos against adultery, clothing and hairstyles, breath fresheners and pornography and condoms and H.I.V. and all the rest" have their "ancient but ongoing source" in the organism's need to thwart parasites. "The phenomenon of romantic love" may be adequately understood by reference to "the unruly marketplace of human mate-finding." And finally, the general rule: "Everything we value — from sugar and sex and money to music and love and religion — we value for reasons. Lying behind, and distinct from, our reasons are evolutionary reasons, free-floating rationales that have been endorsed by natural selection." Never mind the merits of materialism as an analysis of the world. As an attitude to life, it represents a collapse of wisdom. So steer clear of "we materialists" in your dark hours. They cannot fortify you, say, after the funeral of a familiar intentional system."
[Again, emphasis added]
Yes, indeed.

This Will Be Interesting To Watch

The FFRF opposes even secular speech by a non-Atheist in this Georgia High School. Suppression of all public speech which comes from non-Atheists apparently is now their goal.

Atheists Seek Investigation Into Christian’s ‘Presence’ in Debate Class to Speak on Critical Thinking

"LAGRANGE, Ga. — An atheist group has requested an investigation into the presence of a recognized biblical creation leader and debater at a Georgia high school, where he recently spoke to students about critical thinking.

In late March, Eric Hovind, the president of the Florida-based ministry Creation Today, addressed a debate class at Troup County Comprehensive High School in LaGrange. Hovind says that his talk did not include mention of his faith or creation, but was rather a general discussion on critical thinking.

But as Hovind had engaged in a debate with a local humanist two days prior and had posted a photo of the event on social media, and since he is a born-again Christian who is known to speak against evolution, atheists became upset with school officials for allowing Hovind to address students.

The Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) soon sent a letter to the superintendent of the Troup County School System requesting an investigation into Hovind’s appearance.

“It is unconstitutional and completely inappropriate for TCCHS to host a fundamentalist Christian speaker whose sole purpose and goal is the promotion of biblical creationism,” the letter, written by staff attorney Elizabeth Cavill, read.

“It is difficult for us to understand how this presentation could have been approved,” she wrote. “Your community undoubtedly includes many people who have professional experience … to discuss ‘critical thinking’ with students interested in debate, and whose presence would not violate clear constitutional dictates.”

Cavill then remarked that it takes the promotion of religion in schools “very seriously,” noting as a threat that it had recently sued a school district in the state.

“FFRF respectfully requests that you commence an immediate investigation into these allegations and take appropriate action to avoid First Amendment violations from within your district,” she wrote.

But when the Memphis, Tenn.-based Center for Religious Expression learned of FFRF’s correspondence to the district, it likewise sent a letter to officials—to urge them not to listen to the atheist organization.

“The gist of FFRF’s argument is that Mr. Hovind cannot be allowed to speak in a public school because he holds religious views,” the letter, written by attorney Nate Kellum, read. “The suggestion that Mr. Hovind’s presence in a public school violates the establishment clause because he is a Christian is untenable.”

It reiterated that Hovind did not speak about his faith or evolution during his visit.

“FFRF’s claim that Mr. Hovind’s presentation amounts to ‘religious instruction’ is downright silly,” Kellum wrote. “His presentation did not even mention anything religious. … Indisputably, your school invited Mr. Hovind to speak on the secular topic of critical thinking, and in this context it was only appropriate for him to teach this topic referencing his own personal experiences, just like any other speaker would do in the same capacity.”

“These considerations evidence a clearly secular, and indeed laudable, purpose and not a religious one,” he continued. “In the setting of a high school debate class, allowing Mr. Hovind to discuss critical thinking was in no way a violation of the establishment clause.”

Kellum further noted opined in a press release that he found it astounding that FFRF asserted that people of faith should be “disqualified” from speaking in public schools out of assumptions about the content of their speech.

“Just like anyone else, Christians have a place in society,” he stated. “Christians cannot be banished from participation in public affairs due to their personal beliefs. ”"

Friday, May 1, 2015

Obama COULD Stop This

But he won't; it's all part of the plan.
Obama Admin. Won’t Let States Ask for Proof of Citizenship … On Voter Registration Form!
The evidence clearly shows that non-citizens are ending up on the rolls as a result.

"Non-citizens are voting in American elections, and the federal government refuses to do anything to stop it.

Worse, the current administration seems to be doing everything they can to prevent the states from trying to stop it. First, they sued states that asked people to present ID before voting. Now, the administration will not let states even ask people to establish they are citizens when they register to vote.

That’s the underlying plot in the latest major case in election law that has just been presented to the Supreme Court. Federal law says that states must accept and use a federal form for registering voters. But the federal form doesn’t require any proof that the person submitting the form is a citizen.

The form just asks the registrant to check a box.

Meanwhile, federal law mandates that voter registration forms be made available and pushed everywhere from licensing branches to welfare offices.

From personal experience as an immigrant, I had a driver’s license, a Social Security number, and lived in this country for several years before I became a citizen. I had plenty of opportunities to fill out the federal voter registration form. I never did, of course — but what if I didn’t know any better?

Or what if I thought the form was being offered to me because I was allowed to register?

Or that, surely, I wouldn’t be added to the voter rolls if I checked the box claiming I was not a citizen?

But that’s not what’s been happening. Noncitizens are offered the voter registration forms all over the country and are filling them out, and they are being added to the rolls regardless of which box they check.

In an amicus brief, the American Civil Rights Union has submitted evidence and arguments to the Supreme Court showing that this is exactly what has been happening: the federal form is failing to keep non-citizens off the rolls. In fact, left to itself, the federal voter registration form is causing the problem.

Some states have tried to prevent this problem from continuing. Kansas and Arizona, while accepting and using the federal form, require registrants to provide some kind of proof of citizenship in order to register. But when they asked the Election Assistance Commission to add these state law instructions to their version of the federal form, the EAC flatly refused.

Now, the EAC is fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to not let Kansas and Arizona ask for proof of citizenship.

So what’s the issue?

The Constitution says that the states get to decide the qualifications for voters. In other words, the states get to decide who votes. Relying on this clear power, Kansas and Arizona are rightfully saying that a person is qualified to vote in their states if they provide some kind of proof of citizenship.

Seems logical, right?"
It's the reason they are packing illegals into all sections of the USA.

The Left Eats Itself, Cont'd

It is microagressive to post microaggressions:
Brandeis Microaggression protest accused of being Microaggressive

"Brandeis Asian students group apologizes to Asian students “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions in our installation”"
You can't make this stuff up; it would not be believed by rational readers. Go to the site for the lengthy details...

A Look At The Black Panthers

New Black Panther Head: Like Founding Fathers, We Are Willing to Kill for Black Nation

"This Week on the New Black Panther Party’s “Black Power Radio,” national chairman Hashim Nzinga said since America has “declared war on us,” evidenced by “military police in the black neighborhood” protecting the rich, the New Black Panthers should be looked upon as Founding Fathers who declare war and are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”

Nzinga said, “America is about protecting the rich and the powerful.”

He added, “We pay taxes. They have declared war on us and it’s nothing but state racism.”

“So if we say we are at war, we should be applauded like George Washington,” Nzinga continued. “We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

“This is not the hate hour, this is the love hour,”he added. “We have to love ourselves enough to be willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”"
The actual facts are that the huge majority of attacks on blacks are from other blacks. The presence of law enforcement is to prevent the anarchy of blacks from destroying their own people and property. If they want to save their babies, they would have to revert to married families with the father being responsible and a role model of good character - and that currently seems out of the question.

What the Black Panthers are promoting is a continuation of parasitism, but without any law enforcement. They wish to be allowed to exist in their anarchy without interference.

In essence, that is what has happened in the Democrat controlled cities. Two types of parasite have evolved: political cronies who become stupid rich; and the ghetto dwellers who have no options but to vote for their handouts. That's the Blue Model; it's not "America", as Nzinga thinks: it is the Democrats, in the Democrat strongholds who have created this.