Amendments for Liberty
Mark Levin’s new book shows how to restore the Founders’ original vision of government.
Mark Levin’s new book (The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,
published by Simon & Schuster) should be required reading for
conservative bloggers, reporters, radio talk-show hosts, state
legislators, members of Congress, and grass-roots activists all over
America. It provides a coherent plan to restore our constitutional
republic, reversing the damage inflicted by the Progressive movement
over the past 80 years, and preventing us from sliding into financial
and economic ruin because of a profligate political class unable to curb
its spending.
Levin sounds the warning about the “necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional
republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing
authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.” Using original sources, such
as James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, as well as
the extensive discussions in the Federalist Papers, Levin
explains the intent of the Framers to establish a federal system with a
central government of limited powers balanced by sovereign state
governments.
Levin reviews the history of constitutional changes, such as the 16th
and 17th Amendments, which greatly increased the power of the federal
government. The 16th Amendment’s legalization of a national income tax
gave the federal government the financial capacity to vastly expand its
size and spending, leading to the dire fiscal mess that so perplexes
Washington today. And the 17th Amendment’s requirement of popular
election of senators eliminated an important check the Framers had
placed on the federal government — the representation of state
governments in the U.S. Senate. While basic civics classes teach about
the horizontal checks and balances of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches, they ignore the fact that state control of the U.S.
Senate was seen as an essential, second vertical check on the power of the federal government.
It
is unlikely that the Constitution would have been ratified without this
essential feature preserving the “balance of power” between the states
and the federal government. Levin eloquently describes the “critical
blow” the 17th Amendment struck to our federalist structure:
The
long silence of the states had begun. The states no longer had a
legislative venue, or any venue, to influence directly the course of the
federal government. This contributed significantly to the dismantlement
of the states’ traditional and exclusive areas of governing
responsibility. As a result, today the federal government fills whatever
areas of governance and even society it chooses. State sovereignty
exists mostly at the will of the federal government. The federal
government’s limited nature under the Constitution was transmuted into
the kind of decentralized power structure the Framers worked so
diligently to thwart.
Levin also describes the effects of key Supreme Court decisions, including Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and the recent approval of Obamacare in NFIB v. Sebelius
(2012), outlining how the Court has vastly expanded the power of both
the judiciary and Congress far beyond what was intended. His account of
how the Supreme Court surrendered to President Roosevelt’s threats in
the 1930s and relaxed its strict adherence to the Commerce Clause,
destroying the limits on the power of the federal government in the
Constitution, is depressing. But it makes a key point undergirding
Levin’s argument that we need structural changes to restore
constitutional governance: People are fallible; hence we cannot depend
on judges, politicians, or government bureaucrats to always act in a
principled manner.
Levin also explains how Congress has fueled the
massive increase in power of the executive branch by delegating
“unconstitutionally lawmaking power to a gigantic yet ever-growing
administrative state.” Levin’s description of a constantly expanding
bureaucracy staffed by unaccountable federal civil servants is chilling.
In 2011 alone, bureaucrats issued 3,807 new regulations when Congress
passed only 81 laws signed by the president. In 2012, the Obama
administration imposed $236 billion in new regulatory costs on our
economy.
Having worked in two different federal agencies, I know
from personal experience that Levin’s warnings about the dangers
“unleashe[d] on society” by all these rules and regulations promulgated
by faceless bureaucrats are right on target. The incontestable result of
this aggregation of power in the central government is the imposition
of “social engineering and central planning . . . in search of the
ever-elusive utopian paradise.”
Levin proposes a series of constitutional amendments designed to curb
the almost unlimited power of the federal government and return us to a
federal system in which state governments have an actual voice in the
governance of our country as originally intended; where nine “imperfect”
lawyers in black robes cannot make “political and public policy
decisions and impos[e] them on every corner of the nation and every part
of society” with no accountability; and the power and authority of the
legislative and executive branches are restrained in a way that curbs
their ability to limit our liberty.
The key to Levin’s plan is
Article V, which sets out the two ways in which the Constitution can be
amended. The only method ever used in our history is the first: passage
of an amendment by two thirds of both houses of Congress and approval by
three quarters of the states. Levin proposes employing the second
method: having Congress call a constitutional convention upon
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states.
Levin admits that he “was originally skeptical” because he feared “it
could turn into a runaway caucus” and “would play disastrously into the
hands of the Statists.” But he changed his mind when he realized that
the language of Article V does not allow a constitutional convention
whose delegates can directly change the Constitution. It says
specifically that two thirds of the states can call for “a Convention
for proposing Amendments” that shall only become “Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States.” Thus it would be a “limited-purpose convention” that
could not be used to draw up an “entirely new constitution or a new form
of government.”
Levin proposes eleven amendments that would:
- Establish twelve-year term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court;
- Repeal the 17th Amendment;
- Allow either Congress or the states to overturn a Supreme Court
decision within 24 months with a three fifths vote of the members of
both houses or the states;
- Require a federal budget to be enacted by May or impose an
automatic across-the-board 5 percent cut, and the budget may not exceed
total tax receipts or 17.5 percent of GDP;
- Place a 15 percent limit on the amount of income taxes collected
from natural and legal persons, change the tax-return filing date to the
day before federal elections, and ban federal estate, value-added, or
sales taxes;
- Require every federal agency to be reauthorized every three years
in a stand-alone bill or else expire, and require a seven-member House
committee to approve all regulations with an economic burden greater
than $100 million within six months or cancel implementation of the
regulation;
- Limit the Commerce Clause to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between the states, and specify that it does not extend to activity within states (whether or not it affects interstate commerce) or to compelling an individual to participate in commerce;
- Extend the protection against seizure of private property to
require compensation for regulations that reduce market value or
interfere with the use of property in an amount exceeding $10,000;
- Change Article V so that any constitutional amendment, proposed by
anyone, will be adopted if it is ratified by two thirds of the states;
- Require a 30-day waiting period between agreement upon the final
version of any congressional bill (engrossment) and the final vote to
approve it, and allow three fifths of the states to override any federal
statute or any federal regulation with a cost exceeding $100 million
within 24 months of passage or approval; and
- Require valid photo ID and proof of citizenship to register and
vote in all federal elections, in person or by mail, and limit early
voting to 30 days before the election (except for active-duty military
personnel).
These
amendments all deserve serious consideration by policymakers and the
American people. None of Levin’s proposed amendments will put what he
calls the “post-constitutional soft tyranny” genie completely back in
the bottle, but they are designed to substantially curb the abuse of
power and taxpayer funds that has become routine in Washington. They
could also restore the role of the states in our federal system — a key
ingredient in any such repair.
Over more than a decade in
Washington, I have at times despaired at the dangerous accumulation of
power here, the downhill financial spiral we are on, and the inability,
unwillingness, and lack of political will to do anything about it.
Levin’s proposals give me hope that there might actually be a way out of
the morass in which we find ourselves.
Levin recognizes the
“daunting task before us,” but as he passionately argues, “there is no
reason to be passive witnesses to societal dissolution, at the command
of governing masterminds in the federal government and their disciples.”
I couldn’t agree more.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357516/amendments-liberty-hans-von-spakovsky
Obama's America: Income Inequality Grows -- and Prosperity Declines
It must have hurt his friends at The New York Times to admit it, but a recent report there conceded that under President Obama, income inequality has accelerated dramatically.
Indeed, the ratio of average to median wages -- one measure of such
inequality -- grew at a rate of .28% per year during the presidency of
George W. Bush. During Obama's tenure, it's grown four times faster,
1.14 % annually. For a president who has deplored the income gap as a cause of America's fraying social fabric, this is a damning indictment.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that for many of us, an obsession
with "income inequality" is silly. There's not too much "income
inequality" in Cuba, after all, because almost everyone (except the
government-anointed elite) is poor and miserable. And too often, a
distinguishing feature of the left, in Margaret Thatcher's memorable
formulation, is that they would "rather have the poor poorer, provided
the rich were less rich."
Conservatives, on the other hand, aren't worried that some people will do too
well, so long as the poorest among us are able to thrive. But in
Obama's America, that certainly isn't happening, either. Survey data
recently reported by the Associated Press reveal that "[f]our out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives."
The president needs to admit that his big-spending, high-taxing,
government-centric approach is failing, by every measure. Only
pro-growth, pro-opportunity policies -- that won't impede those with the
ability and the drive to succeed -- will restore the American dream.
It's far more important to ensure that all of us can prosper, rather than worrying about who is prospering relative to others.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/09/03/obamas-america-income-inequality-grows--and-prosperity-declines-n1690600
The Awful Truth about Obama
The
advocates of congressional backing for an Obama strike on Syria claim
that America would be weakened if the president is rebuked.
Unfortunately, America already is weakened, and backing a dangerously
incompetent president's pinprick won't do anything to help. President
Obama has no credibility with the tough guys. Our deterrent power is
already sapped of vigor. With each day, it gets worse for Obama and for
America.
Michael Graham of the Boston Herald lays out a telling polemic, the sort of mockery that, as Alinsky taught, is impossible to rebut:
The Los Angeles Times quotes a U.S. official who says President Obama wants an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked."
"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic."
And there you have the Obama foreign policy reduced to a bumper sticker: "Don't mock me, bro!"
But how can we not mock
a president who says he's "made the decision" that military action
against Assad is a moral imperative and essential to U.S. security; and
that he's "made a second decision" to not make a decision but to wait
for Congress to decide.
A president making these two completely contradictory statements is bad. But to make them in the same speech?
No wonder Jimmy Carter is smiling.
The
problem with Obama's behavior is that it is dangerous. Through his
rhetoric and by degrading our military capabilities through budget cuts
and morale-sapping sexual social-engineering policies, Obama has ended
the de facto Pax Americana era of world politics. Syria's puppet master Iran does not fear Obama assembling a large coalition the way both Presidents Bush did to punish Iraq.
Should
Obama attack Syria with a pinprick, there is every probability that
asymmetrical retaliatory strikes will be launched by Hezb'allah or other
Iranian cat's paws. Then what?
Obama could end up sparking World War
III. If so, he'd better ask the British to give back that bust of
Churchill, and put it in the Oval Office again. Let's hope the Iranians
aren't able to put together a few nukes yet.
Obama: Hey, I didn’t set the red line!
Barack Obama finds himself in Sweden today, a late change to his G-20
itinerary after deciding to snub Vladimir Putin over Edward Snowden’s
asylum. Fittingly, Obama used a joint press conference in Stockholm with
the Swedish Prime Minister to massage his own role in the diplomatic
debacle over Syria in which Obama now finds himself. Obama insisted that he didn’t set a “red line” for action over the use of chemical weapons, but that Congress did … and so did everyone else, except Obama, of course:
“My credibility is not on the line — the international
community’s credibility is on the line,” President Barack Obama said
Wednesday in Sweden regarding his desire for a military strike in
response to a suspected August chemical attack in Syria. He said the
question is, after going through all the evidence: “Are we going to try
to find a reason not to act? And if that’s the case, then I think the
(world) community should admit it.”
President Barack Obama said Wednesday the “red line” he previously
spoke of regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria wasn’t his own,
but the world’s. “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The
world set a red line when governments representing 98%” of the world’s
population “passed a treaty forbidding (chemical weapons) use, even when
countries are engaged in war,” Obama said in Sweden.
That’s certainly true, but it is equally true that the international
“red line” on this issue was set through the UN, which is now claiming
that only the multilateral organization has the authority to enforce
it. UN Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon warned yesterday
that military action outside of the UN’s auspices would also violate
international law — and would at the very least undermine Obama’s
argument here. If Obama strikes Syria without even bothering to ask the
UN for support, then how can he rely on the UN’s “red line” as
justification?
“I respect the U.N. process,” he said at an event in
Stockholm with Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who opposes military
intervention without U.N. approval.
Obviously that’s not the case, since Obama isn’t even bothering to
propose action at the UN Security Council. George Bush did at least that much,
but the US also had justification to open new hostilities in Iraq
thanks to the repeated violations of the Saddam Hussein regime of the
1991 cease-fire agreement over a twelve-year period. No such
justification exists separately here.
By the way, here’s Obama from a year ago setting the red line:
That looks a lot like Obama setting that red line, doesn’t it? “That would change my calculus — that would change my equation.” There wasn’t any hint of we or they in that statement.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/04/obama-hey-i-didnt-set-the-red-line/
The Syrian ‘Rebels’ and Chemical Weapons: Remembering Your Al-Qaeda History
Myopic focus on alleged chemical weapons use by the Assad regime in
Syria is wrongheaded, as it has been all along. The salient issue is
whether the United States should intervene militarily on behalf of
enemies of the United States — the “rebel” factions, in which ties to
al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood run deep. If chemical weapons use,
rather than American national security, is to be our obsession, however,
it is worth remembering al Qaeda’s history in that regard.
In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department filed its initial indictment
against Osama bin Laden for conspiring to carry out mass-damage attacks
against American national defense facilities. Included was the
allegation that:
At various times from at least as early as 1993 USAMA BIN
LADEN and others known and unknown, made efforts to produce chemical
weapons …
Th filing also claimed that al-Qaeda had reached “an understanding”
with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein that included cooperation “on
weapons development.”
Following the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Justice Department broadly expanded
the indictment, adding numerous other al-Qaeda defendants and new
charges. The new indictment charged that “[a]t various times from at
least as early as 1993, the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN, and others known
and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of chemical weapons.”
It further explained that a key bin Laden aide, Wadi el-Hage, had
engaged in:
… international travels [that] concerned efforts to
procure chemical weapons and their components on behalf of Usama Bin
Laden and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim [another of al Qaeda’s founding members].
Because al-Qaeda was so committed to acquiring chemical weapons for
the purpose of using them offensively against the United States and the
West, chemical weapons became a central focus of Clinton administration
counterterrorism — a focus that has been maintained in subsequent
administrations. The 9/11 Commission Report details these efforts and
the rationale behind them.
Thus, following the 1998 embassy bombings, the Commission recounted
that President Clinton decided to authorize cruise missile strikes
against the al Shifa facility in Sudan — ostensibly, a pharmaceutical
plant — in order to “lessen the chance of Bin Laden’s having nerve gas
for a later attack.” The Commission elaborated:
The CIA reported that a soil sample from the vicinity of
the al Shifa plant had tested positive for EMPTA, a precursor chemical
for VX, a nerve gas whose lone use was for mass killing. Two days before
the embassy bombings, [Clinton White House counterterrorism adviser
Richard] Clarke’s staff wrote that Bin Ladin “has invested in and almost
certainly has access to VX produced at a plant in Sudan.” … [Clinton
national security adviser Sandy] Berger has told us that he thought
about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa,
and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later. [Footnotes
omitted.]
After the bombing, the Islamic supremacist government of Sudan — a
notorious al-Qaeda enabler — steadfastly denied that anything nefarious
had been going on at al Shifa. Nevertheless, the Commission reported:
“President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Berger, [CIA director George]
Tenet, and Clarke insisted to us that their judgment was right, pointing
to the soil sample evidence.” The Commission added that Clinton
seriously considered additional military action in 1999 because the
government received “a flurry of ominous reports about chemical weapons
training or development at the Derunta camp [al-Qaeda maintained in
Afghanistan] and possible attempts to amass nuclear material at Herat
[another al-Qaeda hub in Afghanistan].”
Al-Qaeda’s efforts to acquire, manufacture, and eventually use chemical weapons have never ceased. A report from just three months ago by Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal is especially useful:
The Iraqi military announced today that it arrested five
members of an al Qaeda cell that was seeking to manufacture chemical
weapons, including sarin nerve gas, and plotting to conduct attacks
within Iraq, Europe, and North America.
The Defense Ministry announced that it arrested the five members of
the al Qaeda in Iraq cell and raided two factories in Baghdad that were
used to research and manufacture the deadly chemical agents. The arrests
were made with the help of undisclosed foreign intelligence services.
The chemical weapons cell was seeking to produce sarin as well as
mustard blistering agents. The group had acquired some of the precursor
chemicals as well as the formulas needed to manufacture the agents.
According to the Defense Ministry’s spokesman, the cell was plotting
to use remotely-piloted model aircraft to spray some of the chemical
weapons sometime next week as Shia mourners commemorated the death of
Imam Kadhum.
The cell also had contacts with a network that would have attempted
to smuggle the chemical weapons for use in the United States, Canada,
and Europe, the Defense Ministry said.
The report of an al Qaeda cell in possession of chemical agents is
the second from the Middle East in the past two days. Yesterday, Turkish newspapers reported that members of an Al Nusrah Front cell were in possession of sarin gas,
and were planning to conduct attacks at the Incirlik Air Base in Adana,
and in Gaziantep, a city near Turkey’s border with Syria. Other reports
said that the Al Nusrah Front cell was planning to use the deadly nerve
gas inside Syria. The reports have not been confirmed by the Turkish
government.
The Al Nusrah Front for the People in the Levant is al Qaeda’s
affiliate in Syria. The group was formed by al Qaeda in Iraq, and its
leader has openly sworn allegiance to Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s
emir. The Al Nusrah Front is one of al Qaeda’s most dangerous
affiliates. More that 10,000 fighters are estimated to be in its ranks,
and the group is said to be absorbing entire units from the so-called
secular Free Syrian Army.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has attempted to construct crude chemical weapons in
the past, and has employed such weapons on the battlefield. In 2007, al
Qaeda in Iraq launched more than a dozen chlorine suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad, Anbar province, and Diyala province. The chlorine gas strikes killed 32 Iraqis and poisoned over 600 more.
In Syria, the Al Nusrah Front is suspected of launching a chlorine gas attack in March of this year. Twenty-six Syrians, including 16 Syrian soldiers, were killed in the attack.
Al Qaeda has long sought to place chemical weapons in its arsenal. In 2002, CNN
found videos of al Qaeda experimenting with chemical weapons at the
Darunta camp near the city of Jalalabad in Nangarhar province,
Afghanistan. The video showed al Qaeda members experimenting with a gas
thought to be sarin or another nerve agent on dogs. Formulas to make
sarin were also found at the camp.
Again, I believe the concentration on chemical weapons, including
President Obama’s credibility-crippling recklessness in labeling their
use a “red line,” misses the point — at best. It diverts attention from
the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that
al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of
U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad
could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad
himself has been.
But if we are going to make this a debate about chemical weapons, is
it not worth factoring in that Assad’s opposition includes elements that
have been seeking to use chemical weapons against the United States for
more than two decades? That al-Qaeda recently and repeatedly used
chemical weapons in Iraq? And that — as Bill Roggio notes — al Nusrah,
an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, is suspected of using chemical weapons
in Syria just six months ago?
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/09/03/the-syrian-rebels-and-chemical-weapons-remembering-your-al-qaeda-history/?singlepage=true
Gold Star Mom to Poker Player McCain: 'I'm Sorry the Lives of Our Brave Warriors Bore You'
Responding to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) playing online poker on his
iPhone during yesterday’s Senate hearing with Secretary of State John
Kerry over war with Syria, Gold Star mother Debbie Lee fired back in an
exclusive comment to Breitbart News. “It infuriates me,” she said. “We
are facing the possibility of sending our sons and daughters to a war,
conflict, military action or whatever politically correct term you use –
an action that could change the world as we know it – and McCain
couldn’t care less.”
Lee is the founder of America’s Mighty Warriors, a non-profit
focusing on Gold Star moms. She lost her son, Navy SEAL Marc Alan Lee,
in Operation Iraqi Freedom, on August 2, 2006. Navy officers said that
Marc died after single-handedly fighting off enemy fighters as his team
rescued a wounded soldier. He fired 100 rounds of ammunition before
being killed.
Lee continued, “McCain is so bored that he needs to play poker on his
iPhone and then when caught jokes about it. How disgraceful!
“Is that what the business of government has come to for so many who
fill the halls of Congress? Is everything a gamble, with the best bet
being the biggest bet? Has McCain already doubled down on war, since he
knows the hand that is to be dealt?”
Lee concluded, “I’m sorry the lives of our brave warriors who are
fighting for our freedoms bore you. I’m sorry my country, the country my
son died for, bores you. I’m sorry that the risk of war bores you.
Senator, it is time for you to resign your position as my Senator.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/04/Debbie-Lee-McCain
On August 13 I named PJ Media’s columnist Victor Davis Hanson
as one of my foundational influences on both foreign policy and
culture. The headline stated bluntly why one should consider Hanson’s
contributions at PJ Media and National Review and especially his many books of military and classical history:
I cited from this excerpt from page 12 of The Father of Us All: War and History Ancient and Modern,
explaining a key reason why both our political leaders and the public
at large remain so confused about how to respond to the potential of war
in Syria:
Did the two people making the decisions about Syria — Barack Obama
and Valerie Jarrett — ever take a single course in military history?
Have they read a single book about the origins of the Syrian conflict?
Or is their UN ambassador Samantha Power’s foreign policy manifesto A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide their all-purpose guide?
To learn more of the history behind this conflict and weigh potential
U.S. involvement, check out these three titles Hanson recommends:
by Robert G. Rabil
by Barry Rubin
by Fouad Ajami
Click here to visit the Freedom Academy Book Club for *7 more new recommendations from Hanson.
UPDATED:
* VDH added another title to his list. See also these PJ articles on Syria:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/09/03/9-books-victor-davis-hanson-recommends-to-understand-the-war-in-syria/
Professor tells students Republicans 'raped' America
Michigan State University is investigating a video that purportedly
shows a professor telling his class that Republicans were a bunch of
“dying white people” who “raped this country” and wanted to prevent
black people from voting.
“MSU is thankful we’ve been made aware of the situation,” spokesman Kent Cassella tells me. “We will be looking into it.”
The video was secretly filmed Aug. 29th by a student on the first day
of a creative writing class. The professor can be seen and heard
railing against Republicans and disparaging former presidential
candidate Mitt Romney’s wife.
The watchdog group Campus Reform
,
which first reported the incident, identified the professor as William
Penn. According to his online biography, Penn teaches in the
university’s creative writing program and is a founding member of the
Native American Writer’s Circle.
American
taxpayers are being forced to pay the salaries of aging liberals who
are using their classrooms to intimidate conservative students.
MSU said they were not prepared to identify the professor and Penn did not return numerous messages seeking comment.
The student asked to remain anonymous over fears of reprisal.
However, I have verified the individual’s identity. The student is a
sophomore political science major.
Once his professor started talking about politics, the student
started filming the discussion. He then sent the video to Campus Reform,
a website that routinely exposes bias on college campuses.
“I had seen videos on Campus Reform
before that dealt with these issues and I could not believe it was
happening,” he told me. “The terrible words he fired off about
Republicans were very disconcerting.”
“If you go to the Republican convention in Florida, you see all of
the old Republicans with the dead skin cells washing off them,” the
professor can be heard telling students on the video.
“They are cheap. They don't want to pay taxes because they have
already raped this country and gotten everything out of it they possibly
could.”
At one point during the eight-minute video, the professor accused
Republicans of devising a plan for "getting black people not to vote."
“They don't want to pay for your tuition because who are you?" he asked. "Well, to me you are somebody."
He also issued a veiled threat to his students.
“I’m a college professor,” he said. “If I find out you are a closet racist I am coming after you.
He told them the country is “still full of closet racists.”
“What do you think is going on in South Carolina and North Carolina.
Voter suppression. Its about getting black people not to vote. Why?
Because black people tend to vote Democratic.”
“Why would would Republicans want to do it?” he asked. “Because
Republicans are not a majority in this country anymore. They are a bunch
of dead white people."
The professor also berated former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann.
“Ann Romney a first lady?” he asked. “And remember this if you are
just going to be a greedy bastard all your life and just try to get
things (unintelligible) In order to be rich like Mitt Romney and hide
all your income offshore, in the Cayman Islands, you have to be -- think
about it -- Mitt Romney. Anybody here want to be Mitt Romney? Him? I
mean (sigh) married to her?”
The student also told me that the attacks on the Romneys were the most troubling part of the lecture.
“He made fun of her voice and kept scoffing at their relationship,”
the student told Fox News. “You can make fun of a candidate and their
party all you want but when you get personal, when you start attacking
their spouse in the way he did, it’s inexcusable.”
Cassella said the university is taking the matter seriously.
“At MSU it is important the classroom environment is conducive to a
free exchange of ideas and is respectful of the opinions of others,” he
said.
But that’s little comfort to the young political science major who
filmed the episode. He said this type of liberal bias is commonplace on
college campuses around the nation. And he said many conservative
students feel intimidated by left wing professors.
“I have felt it necessary to write a few papers with a left-leaning
bias out of fear of receiving a lower grade for writing what I truly
believe,” the student told me.
The Michigan State University video is further evidence that American
taxpayers are being forced to pay the salaries of aging liberals who
are using their classrooms to intimidate conservative students and
advance a far-left, anti-American agenda.
There’s an old Southern saying – you can’t teach stupid. Sadly, on
many of our public university campuses, stupid is doing the teaching.
Massachusetts court hears Pledge of Allegiance challenge
A lawyer for an atheist family has asked Massachusetts' highest
court to ban the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in state
public schools.
In arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday, a lawyer
for the Acton family argued that the words "under God" in the pledge
discriminate against atheist students.
The lawyer argues that the reference defines patriotism as someone who believes in God.
Lawyers for the school district and another family who want to keep
the Pledge of Allegiance in schools say reciting it is voluntary and
students can leave out the reference to God or choose not to
participate.
Last year, a state judge found that the rights of the atheists were not violated by the words "under God."
The family appealed the ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment