Displaying the most recent of 92325 posts written by

Ruth King

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Happy Graduation Snowflakes! By Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. ****

By on April 12th, 2018

Springtime means rebirth, baseball, and . . . new stories about how 99.89 percent of college-graduation speakers are certified lefties. Those of us with opposing viewpoints are left with few options; most of us just suck it up, grin, and sit there — although the grinning part is becoming more of a challenge. You see, our side of the aisle is not so easily agitated into social-protest mode. Still, it would be refreshing to hear at least one college president come clean in his commencement remarks. Just put it all out there for (progressive) mass consumption. To wit:

Hello, everyone . . . Happy Graduation!

Four years of relentless indoctrination is now complete. Most of you no longer trust markets, capitalism, or your parents. You are now officially social-justice warriors; you truly “Feel the Bern.” Accordingly, our job is done. But before you leave for the real world — a hate-filled place without safe spaces, speech codes, Play-Doh, warm cookies, and coloring books to help you “recuperate” from dissenting points of view — a few words of review, and caution.

In the good-news department, our annual giving goal of $1 billion was easily surpassed last year. The school’s endowment is now $59 billion, which means only a 6.5 percent tuition-rate increase for next year! For this good fortune, I can only thank the deity that I am forbidden to mention by name under threat of ACLU lawsuit. So thanks to this unnamed deity for maintaining such high demand for our elite degree among so many of your status-seeking but naïve parents.

More good news: We are excited to announce the construction of what our faculty are calling “Fascist City.” This complex will consist of a number of poorly constructed buildings that our students will be encouraged to destroy whenever a conservative speaker arrives on campus. In this way, our young activists can meet and riot at a central location with no fear of police brutality. Further, our faculty have agreed to purchase and supply bricks (for throwing) free of charge. I also want to thank the newly salaried student government of our very own campus political party, “Bernie’s Young Socialists,” for contributing fire-resistant protest signs (so they may be repurposed). One can never be too environmentally conscious when protesting “the man”!

Continue reading →
EDUCATION Comments turned off

Students at CUNY Law Protested and Heckled My Lecture about Free Speech on Campus By Josh Blackman

By on April 12th, 2018

Editor’s Note: The following piece first appeared on Josh Blackman’s blog. It is adapted and reprinted here with permission.

On Thursday, March 29, students at the City University of New York School of Law protested and heckled my lecture about free speech on campus. You can watch video of the entire event, which lasted about 70 minutes, below. The protest and heckling took place during the first eight minutes of the recording.

In this post, I will recount the events that led up to the protest, and describe my experiences during the encounter. In future writings, I will provide my own commentary. Here, I will try to lay out the facts to the best of my recollection, aided by the (sometimes) inaudible recording.

In October, the CUNY School of Law Federalist Society invited me to speak on a panel discussion about theories of constitutional interpretation. I had planned to speak about originalism. Alas, the students were not able to find any other professors who were willing to participate in the event. After several rounds of emails, I suggested an event about free speech on campus. It is a talk I had given before, without any problems, at Southern Illinois, Texas Southern University, the University of Massachusetts, Barry University, the University of Oregon, and my home institution, the South Texas College of Law Houston. The Federalist Society chapter agreed that this would be a good topic for CUNY. Alas, once again, the chapter was unable to find any other professor who would participate in the event. (This is fairly common.)

Three days before the event, the president of the chapter wrote, “We passed out the flyers today (first day back from spring break) and a large number of students are already up in arms about the event.” The Office of Student Affairs explained that “some enraged students, . . . apparently, are planning to protest.” I asked why they were protesting. The president provided an explanation:

These students saw first, that this is a Federalist Society event; and second, they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA), and instantly assume you’re racist; and third, our event being titled about free speech is reminiscent of events that claim free speech just to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter.

He explained that “we have the support of the administration” and the event would proceed as scheduled.

Hours before the event began, Mary Lu Bilek, the dean of CUNY Law, sent an email to all students:

As a law school, a public institution, and a school within the CUNY system, we are committed to academic freedom, the free exchange of ideas, and expression of all points of view, including the freedom to disagree with the viewpoints of others.

Continue reading →
EDUCATION Comments turned off

CUNY Law Students Disrupt Free-Speech Lecture By Jack Crowe

By on April 12th, 2018

Students at the City University of New York (CUNY) Law School protested and attempted to shut down a lecture on free speech by accusing the speaker of holding racist views and belittling his commitment to the rule of law.

Josh Blackman, a newly tenured professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, was invited to campus by the CUNY Law School Federalist Society, and had prepared a lecture on free speech. Three days before the event, the president of the Federalist Society chapter informed Blackman that a group of “enraged” students intended to protest his lecture but assured him that he had the administration’s full support.

“These students saw first, that this is a Federalist Society event; and second, they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA), and instantly assume you’re racist; and third, our event being titled about free speech is reminiscent of events that claim free speech just to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter,” the chapter president told Blackman.

Upon arriving at the event, Blackman was met by dozens of law students shouting phrases such as “Legal objectivity is a myth” and “He’s a white supremacist,” according to his account, which is corroborated by a video of the incident.

Most of the protesters were carrying signs with messages espousing their support for social equality and assigning racist motives to Blackman.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump and the Unitary Executive By Andrew C. McCarthy

By on April 12th, 2018

Fire Mueller. Pass a law so Trump can’t fire Mueller. Meanwhile, let’s impeach Rosenstein and Wray.

There’s a lot of dingbattery going around.

Elementary Constitutional Principles
In our system, we have a unitary executive. All executive power is vested in a single official, the president of the United States. That means subordinate executive officers do not have their own power; they are delegated to exercise the president’s power. When they act, they are, in effect, the president acting.

Let’s say you are exercising your own power, and you do something that I disagree with but that is within the bounds of reason. I have no choice but to respect the exercise of your discretion. But if you are exercising my power, which means that I am accountable for your actions, it is my way or the highway. And I don’t need a reason to dismiss you; I get to do it simply because I’d rather have somebody else exercising my power. I don’t need cause, and I don’t need to explain myself.

That is how it is with the president. It’s his power. On this, the Constitution imposes only one notable limitation: The chief executive is not permitted to hire top executive officers at will; they must be confirmed by the Senate. Once they are confirmed, though, he may fire them at will.

Prosecutorial power is executive in nature. Federal prosecutors therefore exercise the president’s power. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have no power of their own; they exercise President Trump’s prosecutorial power for as long as that arrangement suits President Trump. The president does not need cause to fire them. He does not need to explain any dismissal to Congress — “Gee, it’s Thursday and I feel like firing someone” is good enough.

If lawmakers believe the president is abusing his power by firing good public servants arbitrarily, they can impeach the president. Or they can try to bend the president into better behavior by cutting off funding, refusing to confirm nominees, or holding oversight hearings that embarrass the administration. Congress has these powerful political tools. But it does not have legal means to usurp the president’s constitutional power. Those powers do not come from Congress. They come from Article II. The Constitution cannot be amended by a mere statute or a regulation. Congress may not enact a law that purports to place conditions on the president’s power to dismiss subordinates who exercise his powers.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Trump Resistance is the greatest show in town Roger Kimball

By on April 12th, 2018

Among the many occasions of unintended comedy that the election of Donald Trump has vouchsafed a grateful world, perhaps none is more comic than that huddled mass of garrulous disappointment calling itself “The Resistance™.” Hillary Clinton had hardly got outside her last goblet of Chardonnay in the wee hours of November 9, 2016 before “the resistance party,” a “grassroots movement fighting against the hateful and authoritarian agenda of Donald Trump and the radical right,” was infesting the internet. Mrs. Clinton herself waited until May 2017 to announce her new political organisation aimed at funding “resistance” groups that are “standing up to President Donald Trump.” Media pundits across the country warned their audiences against “normalising” the President. “Trump is not a legitimate President,” screamed one typical member of the fourth estate, “Normalising fascism, the marriage of authoritarianism and nationalism with a business controlled government, is wrong.”

You can understand their anguish. Someone they did not favor was elected president of the United States in a free, open, democratic election. Can you believe it? Their candidate lost. Even worse, the opposing candidate was elected without their permission, over their strenuous objections, unremitting ridicule, and against their hermetically sealed certitude that such a thing was impossible, impossible! O tempora, O mores! The 2016 presidential election worked the way the Constitution said it was supposed to work, not the way Hollywood millionaires, Ivy-educated pundits, angry feminists, or partisan opponents wanted it to work. Clearly, end times are nigh.

No wonder the Resistance™ is so voluble and tenacious. Just a couple of days ago the comedy site Vox, reporting on the many rallies against President Trump that continue to provide free entertainment at college campuses and other redoubts of privilege across the country, noted that “While the rallies people are attending may not always be Trump-specific, they are certainly Trump-related.” Indeed they are.

Continue reading →
HOMELAND SECURITY Comments turned off

Future Warfare: Protecting the Grid By Tim Connors

By on April 12th, 2018

The First Gulf War put American technological advantage on display against an adversary with no means to respond. Media images released throughout the campaign paid tribute to smart bombs, long-range rockets, and vastly improved ground, air and sea-based systems. America’s technological abilities were awe-inspiring.

A quarter-century later, the United States continues to seek technological superiority. Laser weapons, artificial intelligence and unmanned systems—the very stuff of sci-fi movies—are within our grasp. Unfortunately, such advances do not provide the comfort level they previously did.

Unlike the hapless Iraqi Army circa 1991, today’s potential threats and adversaries have the means to respond. Gulf War-era technological advantages like night vision and GPS are becoming commonplace. Advances in computer and information technology enable adversaries to develop new tactics in cyberspace. And nation states have invested in weapon systems and strategies that offset American advantages.

Geography, another traditional American advantage, no longer acts as a protective security barrier. Terror cells and cyber warriors have already shown they can penetrate our borders and deliver devastating blows. The Homeland is no longer a safe haven to build might and project power. Our factories, military bases, and infrastructure will high priority targets in a future war.

Continue reading →
ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Scott Pruitt, Warrior for Science Democrats and liberal journalists attack the EPA head for insisting on transparency, shared research, and rigorous peer review. John Tierney

By on April 12th, 2018

Imagine if the head of a federal agency announced a new policy for its scientific research: from now on, the agency would no longer allow its studies to be reviewed and challenged by independent scientists, and its researchers would not share the data on which their conclusions were based. The response from scientists and journalists would be outrage. By refusing peer review from outsiders, the agency would be rejecting a fundamental scientific tradition. By not sharing data with other researchers, it would be violating a standard transparency requirement at leading scientific journals. If a Republican official did such a thing, you’d expect to hear denunciations of this latest offensive in the “Republican war on science.”

That’s the accusation being hurled at Scott Pruitt, the Republican who heads the Environmental Protection Agency. But Pruitt hasn’t done anything to discourage peer review. In fact, he’s done the opposite: he has called for the use of more independent experts to review the EPA’s research and has just announced that the agency would rely only on studies for which data are available to be shared. Yet Democratic officials and liberal journalists have denounced these moves as an “attack on science,” and Democrats have cited them (along with accusations of ethical violations) in their campaign to force Pruitt out of his job.

How could “the party of science,” as Democrats like to call themselves, be opposed to transparency and peer review? Because better scientific oversight would make it tougher for the EPA to justify its costly regulations. To environmentalists, rigorous scientific protocols are fine in theory, but not in practice if they interfere with the green political agenda. As usual, the real war on science is the one waged from the left.

The EPA has been plagued by politicized science since its inception in 1970. One of its first tasks was to evaluate the claim, popularized in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, that the use of DDT pesticide was causing an epidemic of cancer. The agency held extensive hearings that led to the conclusion that DDT was not a carcinogen, a finding that subsequent research would confirm. Yet the EPA administrator, William Ruckelshaus, reportedly never even bothered to read the scientific testimony. Ignoring the thousands of pages of evidence, he declared DDT a potential carcinogen and banned most uses of it.

Continue reading →
ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

“The Call of Freedom”: Free Speech and Censorship Should we trust government agencies to have all the people’s best interests at heart? Bruce Thornton

By on April 12th, 2018

In these contentious times, various forms of censorship or discouragement of free speech are continually being fiercely debated.

National Review Online writer Kevin Williamson, hired by the Atlantic for his scorched-earth attacks on Donald Trump, was fired after one column because of his scorched-earth attacks on women who’ve had abortions. Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham’s show has been boycotted by nearly 20 corporate advertisers because of her tweet mildly tweaking David Hogg about his failure to get into some universities. Hogg, of course, is the 17-year-old survivor of the recent mass shooting at a Florida high school who has become a petulant catspaw for the antigun lobby. Meanwhile, revelations of private data being sold or left vulnerable by Facebook, and the continuing censorship of political views by that platform along with YouTube and Google, have heated up calls for subjecting social media to government regulations.

Seems like dangerous times for our first inalienable right, the one protecting free and open speech. But before we endorse policies that end up making matters worse, we should be clear about why the Founders gave us a right that few other nations, including the E.U. states, allow their citizens.

What our Constitution recognizes is that free political speech is indispensable for exercising political freedom, the ability to openly participate in political deliberations. From its beginning in ancient Athens, the constitutional government that made the people sovereign also created the idea of free speech. If people are free to deliberate about and vote for the policies the state pursues, then citizens have to be free to speak publicly without fear of legal restraints or retribution. Unlike elsewhere in antiquity, in ancient Athens there were two words for “free speech,” one of which was also the name of a warship, bespeaking the importance of that right for citizens. And each meeting of the Assembly of citizens opened with the question, “What man has good advice to give the city?” which Euripides praised as “the call of freedom.”

Nor could subjective standards of decorum or “proper” speech be allowed to silence the citizens. In Fifth Century Athens, the rules governing speaking in the Assembly focused mainly on keeping inept, abusive, or repetitive speakers from wasting the citizens’ time. Outside the Assembly, there were no rules. The tragic and comic stages were one of the most important venues of political debate. The policies of Athens, particularly its brutalities during the Peloponnesian War, were criticized in front of 15,000 citizens in the Theater of Dionysus the Liberator, the cult name of the god linking theater to political freedom. Comedy was particularly brutal, depicting politicians by name on the stage and accusing them of every sexual depravity, along with being the spawn of foreign prostitutes and betraying the city for money. So important was this freedom of expression that Aristophanes’ favorite target, the demagogue Cleon, failed to persuade the government to silence the poet.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Watergate Every Week: Using the FBI to Suppress a Political Revolution From Steele to Mueller, the cost of overturning the 2016 election. Daniel Greenfield

By on April 12th, 2018

In the early seventies, political operatives disguised as delivery men broke into a Washington D.C. office. These efforts to spy on the political opposition would culminate in what we know as Watergate.

In the late teens, political operatives disguised as FBI agents, NSA personnel and other employees of the Federal government eavesdropped, harassed and raided the offices of the political opposition.

The raids of Michael Cohen’s hotel room, home and office are just this week’s Watergate.

Political operatives have now seized privileged communications between the President of the United States and his lawyer. Despite fairy tales about a clean process, these communications will be harvested by the counterparts of Peter Strzok, who unlike him are still on the case at the FBI, some of it will appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and some will be passed along to other political allies.

That’s what happened at every juncture of Watergate 2.0. And it only follows that it will happen again.

Just like the eavesdropping, the process will be compartmentalized for maximum plausible deniability. The leakers will be protected by their superiors. The media will shrilly focus the public’s attention on the revelations in the documents rather than on the more serious crimes committed in obtaining them.

Nixon couldn’t have even dreamed of doing this in his wildest fantasies. But Obama could and did. Now his operatives throughout the government are continuing the work that they began during his regime.

Continue reading →
ISRAEL Comments turned off

Palestinians: License to Kill Americans by Bassam Tawil

By on April 12th, 2018

The ruthless rhetoric the Palestinians are using against the US suggests that they have decided to put the Americans on an equal footing with Israel. They miss the days when the State Department sometimes seemed to be more pro-Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.

We are talking about the same Palestinian Authority (PA) that continues to receive millions of dollars in US aid annually. The same PA whose security forces are trained and equipped by Americans and Europeans. The same PA that has a “diplomatic mission” in Washington that is actively taking part in the campaign of incitement against the US and its leader.

The anti-US campaign paves the way for terrorists to kill Americans. It feeds into the ideology of the Islamic State terror group, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, which considers the US the “Great Satan.”

Hate speech and incitement make up the core of the Palestinian narrative.

For several decades now, the Palestinians have been waging a massive and vicious campaign of incitement against Israel. This campaign has made it impossible for any Arab to even think about the prospects of peace with Israel. Notably, the Palestinian hatred of Israel is not linked to anything Israel does or does not do. Rather, the Palestinian hatred of Israel is based on Israel’s existence. Palestinians hate Israel because they believe that Jews have no right to a sovereign country of their own in the Middle East.

Palestinian hate speech against Israel is part of the global landscape: by now, no one even expects anything else from them. A Palestinian mosque preacher calling Jews “descendants of monkeys and pigs” is no story at all — just more of the same. Similarly, a Palestinian maiming or murdering a Jew has become the norm.

The day will come — and it is not far away — when reports of Palestinians not inciting against Israel and Jews will be a remarkable one. The day will come when the only story worth reporting is when a Palestinian did not carry out a terrorist attack against a Jew that day.

Continue reading →