Much has been in the news about the ‘politics’ of the Supreme Court and its most recent nominee. But the real issue is that anyone views the Supreme Court as political at all. And, the fact is, liberals talk about the politics of the Court because they view it as political and therefore assume everyone thinks in the same terms that they do. That is not the case. More importantly, that should not be the case.Continue reading “Should Courts Be Neutral Arbiters Or Partisan Forums?”
You thought the battle over segregation was fought and won decades ago? Apparently not.
The King County, WA (Seattle) has been holding employee ‘listening sessions’ to discuss racial equality. However, it seems that their view of ‘equal’ also means ‘separate but equal’ training. The library system hired consultants to run the sessions, which were held in racially segregated sessions.
The consultants discovered widespread “institutional racism” in the library system but it’s unsure exactly what that means because, according to some participants, if employees reported “not experiencing or witnessing racism while working at KCLS” they were told they were likely suffering from the false consciousness of “internalized racism.” In other words, they had experienced it but they just weren’t smart enough to know it.
For ardent environmentalists, they have two long-standing problems that they don’t seem to realize: one is that they need to avoid making predictions. When it comes to climate, let’s just say it isn’t an exact science and those who have made global warming/climate change a religion seem to want to ramp up doomsday scenarios to increase the sense of urgency. We can look most infamously at Al Gore’s prediction that the world’s ice caps would disappear by 2016. Or the prediction from some in 2005 that climate change would cause more damaging hurricanes and unstable weather, right before the US had the longest period in history with no major hurricanes to hit the coast of the country (Oct. 2005-2015).
The second problem that ardent environmentalists have is that they are so quick to jump on a bandwagon to ‘take action and do something’ that sometimes there isn’t a lot of thought put into what that action is. A few of us may be old enough to remember when the big concern was about the loss of trees and declining forests. So the answer was to quit using paper bags and to switch to plastic. Of course, now that’s all changed. Plastic is bad, doesn’t break down in landfills and so the solution has created an even greater problem (at least paper bags were biodegradable). The same may be turning out to be true for renewable energy.Continue reading “The Latest Environmental Problem? Wind Turbine Blades and Solar Panels”
UK’s black Women and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch delivered a strong and clear condemnation of the Black Lives Matter movement and critical race theory on the floor of the House of Commons — saying such ideologies have no place in British schools and that she would oppose them in every way.
Her statement was unequivocal and clear on why she opposes the radicalism of the organization while supporting equalityContinue reading “Women & Equality Minister Calls Out BLM”
Far left media outlet Yahoo News invited Aurora Snow to pen a column on her opinion of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be the next justice on the Supreme Court
The choice itself is revealing. Aurora Snow, born Rebecca Claire Kensington, is a porn actress and director. In asking her to write on the topic, they obviously felt that was an important constituency to hear from and perspective to share.Continue reading “The Devaluing Of America”
In what is becoming all too common, we have two more examples of radical (and in this case, racist) professors who are promoting their own agenda with taxpayer funding.Continue reading “Radical Rants From Academia”
Republicans currently have a majority in the Senate, holding 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats only need to pick up three seats to gain the majority if Biden is elected President (because the Vice President breaks any tie in the Senate) or four seats if Trump is re-elected. Since Senate seats are six-year terms, roughly a third of them are up for election every two years and this year Republicans hold ten more of the seats up for election than Democrats. Republicans have also had more incumbents than normal not running for re-election and an additional seat being decided that was temporarily filled when John McCain (R-AZ) died of cancer. Similar to the House, the historically large number of incumbent Republicans not running again makes it harder for Republicans to hold onto their majority. Despite that, as recently as six months ago Republicans were confident that they would hold onto their majority and most of the incumbents seemed safe. That’s changed in recent months.Continue reading “The Election Outlook (Part 3 Of A Series—the Senate)”
This weekend, Sen. Chris Coons (Democrat from Delaware) said that he was open to adding more Supreme Court justices if Democrats take control of Congress in November’s election.
Coons said he was open to adding enough justices to the Supreme Court to ensure that Democrats could make sure they have the Court majority that they want.
Let’s be clear, what Coons is saying is that he is opposed to democracy. The laws of the land, in this case related to the size of the Supreme Court, shouldn’t be changed just to ensure one party always rules. That’s a dictatorship.
Coons has said that he is favor of changing the rules and laws of the land, if he doesn’t get his way. Not only is that childish, it’s dangerous to democracy.
This is the second in a series on the upcoming Nov. 3 election, a look at the political landscape with weeks left before the nation goes to the polls. In this edition, we focus on the House of Representatives where the Democrats have a 35 seat majority.Continue reading “The Election (Part 2 Of 3 In A Series-House of Representatives)”
During the last election, when a member of the media would even mention in passing what Hillary Clinton was wearing, the outcry would be swift and sure: only women are judged by their appearance and its discriminatory to have that be a focus. Fair point.
Yet, it’s so interesting that all that changes when the woman being spoken of is not considered a liberal.
Such is the case in the first day of hearings on Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett is a law school professor and current Federal Judge, and is a judge whose record is one that defers to the legislature, meaning that she interprets laws and believes that laws are to be made my elected representatives, which is different than the philosophy of liberal jurists.
Since all bets are off when a woman doesn’t have the certain required beliefs, liberal columnist Alaina Demopoulo wrote a whole article about Justice Barrett’s dress-a whole article. She contrasted Barrett’s dress with the dresses of the Democratic Senators.
“Barrett’s dress made a statement. So did the Democratic women lawmakers at the hearing. Senators Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Mazie K. Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar all wore bright blue blazers, the color of their party.”
Barrett wore a pink dress.
“It was a pretty dress, maybe even stylish… Her outfit radiates a maternal warmth, an easy comfort. It masks the harm she has the potential to enable once confirmed against women, LGBTQ people, all of those with Obamacare, and victims of voter suppression.”
“The dress labored overtime to quell certain fears.”
You can get all that from a dress?!
But more importantly, how was dress linked to qualifications. What value did that lend to the discussion on whether Barrett has been a good Federal judge or would make a good justice for the Supreme Court? And if it was sexist to talk about Hillary Clinton’s appearance, why isn’t it sexist to focus on Amy Barrett’s appearance?
Well, frankly, we know the answer. Because the standards don’t apply when the woman involved isn’t a liberal. A woman who does not follow the pre-determined stereotype is to be opposed by any and all means. Even if it means doing the exact things you said you opposed….because the ends justify any means, apparently.