‘Exposing Everything That Went Wrong’: A Parkland Researcher Speaks Out

What you won’t hear on the news today about Parkland.

Today is the second anniversary of the Parkland shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed.

Max Eden, an education researcher, who co-authored “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students,” joins today’s podcast. Read the edited interview………

Rachel del Guidice: We are joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Max Eden. He’s an education researcher. Max, thank you so much for being with us today.

Max Eden: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me.

Del Guidice: Feb. 14 is the second anniversary of the Parkland shooting in Parkland, Florida, that took the lives of 17 people. Max, you co-authored a book about the shooting. The book is called “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students.” Max, why did you write this book?

Eden: Immediately after the shooting, kind of two groups of students came forward. And one group got a lot more attention than the other.

The group of students [that] got attention said, “We blame the Second Amendment. We blame the NRA. We blame the gun for what happened.” The other group of students said, “We knew it was him before it was over. The student threatened to kill us. He threatened to rape us. He threatened to kill our families. He brought knives to school. He brought bullets to school. We saw something. We said something. They did nothing. They didn’t protect us from him.”

And kind of from my perch as researcher in D.C. when I saw this, I thought, “Oh, OK. Well, this is in a school district that became nationally famous for fighting the so-called school-to-prison pipeline by lowering arrests, lowering suspensions, lowering expulsions. I wonder if these policies, this kind of leniency pressure played a role in his journey through the school system.”

So I wrote an article kind of posing this question about 10 days after the shooting. And, unfortunately, this question kind of very quickly became an answer in politics, as happens, right? I mean, one side was for gun control and the other side was very quick to take the question and answer, “It wasn’t the gun’s fault. It was these policies. It was [former President Barack] Obama’s policies.”

It became a political football very quickly and nobody answered the question. It was labeled as fake news by the superintendent and most of the media skated on by……………..

Oklahoma State Senate passes bill making it easier to arm teachers

The Oklahoma Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that could make it easier for Oklahoma teachers and school personnel to carry a firearm at school.

The bill by Republican Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, and Rep. Sean Roberts, R-Hominy, would change requirements for teachers to be able to be armed at school.

Bullard said the rural school districts in his area want the legislation because it could take a significant amount of time for law enforcement to respond to a mass shooting on campus.

“We have students right now that are vulnerable if someone walks in with a gun,” he said. “It’s a manslaughter and there’s nothing they can do about it.”

Teachers would no longer be required to complete a 240-hour Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training certification course in order to be armed at school. Bullard said the requirement is cost prohibitive and time intensive to a point that it deters teachers from participating.

Instead, under House Bill 2336, school personnel who undergo the eight-hour concealed carry class or the 72 hours of armed security guard training would be eligible to carry on campus at K-12 schools. The personnel also would have to go through “campus-specific active shooter training” as stipulated by local law enforcement agencies.

The campus-specific training would vary based on a school’s size and layout and would be intended for law enforcement to work one-on-one with teachers or school staff who intend to be armed, Bullard said.

Senate Democrats said the legislation could result in teachers having various levels of training depending on which district they teach.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proves why the American education system is broken

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is remarkably dumb but it’s not entirely her fault. She is the product of an education system that cultivate and rewards stupidity.

Over the years, there have been two constant themes in my posts: First, that public K-12 schools are awful and, second, that we should withdraw every penny of taxpayer money from colleges and universities (including private schools in the forms of grants and government back student loans) because they too are awful.

At the K-12 level, education is lousy for several reasons.

First, the education model is the worst way to teach children. Few students learn by sitting down, being lectured to, and then going home and struggling with homework. I highly recommend the Montessori approach, for Maria Montessori looked at how children learn, rather than how adults think they ought to be taught.

Second, K-12 education is bedeviled by every stupid leftist trend, from the “whole word” approach to reading that left a generation illiterate to the insistence on bringing transgender sexuality to kindergarteners.

Third — and there are wonderful and notable exceptions to this problem — women’s lib meant that women at the top of their class were no longer limited to teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. They went on to become high-paying professionals. Most teachers are now drawn from the bottom third of any college class.

At the college and university level, the problem is that these institutions are leftist indoctrination classes. They have little time to teach reasoning and knowledge. They’re too busy shaping little Marxists to go out into the world and support Bernie Sanders.

Which gets me to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom Don Surber calls the face of the Democrat Party. According to Wikipedia, Ocasio-Cortez attended public school, did well, and then became involved in race-based activities:

Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007.[17] In high school and college, Ocasio-Cortez went by the name of “Sandy”.[18] She came in second in the Microbiology category of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiologyresearch project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans.[19] In a show of appreciation for her efforts, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.[20][21] In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute‘s Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session.

She then attended Boston University College [d’oh!], a private college that once had a reputation for excellence. On paper, Ocasio-Cortez was at the top of her graduating class:

Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.[9][26][27]

Clearly, this girl is a brainiac, right? Or maybe not:

Any education system that can produce someone as staggeringly stupid as Ocasio-Cortez is doing something wrong. Taxpayers are paying good money and getting dismal results.

Number of Professors Allegedly in Cahoots With Communist China Quickly Mounts

In recent months, U.S. authorities have discovered Chinese operatives scheming to compromise American interests through the university system, including plots to steal missile technology and cancer research.

Ye Yanqing used to be a student at Boston University until she chose to flee the country last month. The reason for her departure: an FBI investigation regarding her position as a Lieutenant in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), according to the Washington Times.

According to investigators, Ye was taking orders to gather intelligence from “senior leaders of the PLA while conducting research at Boston University,” according to the Washington Times. In addition to committing espionage, she also failed to disclose her position as an active-duty PLA officer, earning her charges of visa fraud in addition to charges of acting as a foreign government agent, making false statements to investigators, and conspiracy.

This sort of collusion isn’t limited to Chinese-born student-spies. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department was taken into custody and charged Jan. 28 for making false statements to investigators about his financial ties to China.

An Academic’s Proposal For Ending Climate Change: Human Extinction

Human extinction? Okay, see what she says when she’s told she goes first.

I came across this on Twitter today and at first suspected it was satire but so far as I can tell it’s not. An Australian academic named Patricia MacCormack
has  a new book out titled, “The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene.” The idea is that the earth would be better off without us and, therefore, it’s time to start an activism whose goal is our own extinction.

“The basic premise of the book is that we’re in the age of the Anthropocene, humanity has caused mass problems and one of them is creating this hierarchal world where white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people are succeeding, and people of different races, genders, sexualities and those with disabilities are struggling to get that.”

“This is where the idea of dismantling identity politics comes in – they deserve rights not because of what they are, but because they are.

“The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion, and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.”

The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world.

Here’s a further description of the book:

We are in the midst of a growing ecological crisis. Developing technologies and cultural interventions are throwing the status of “human” into question.

It is against this context that Patricia McCormack delivers her expert justification for the “ahuman”. An alternative to “posthuman” thought, the term paves the way for thinking that doesn’t dissolve into nihilism and despair, but actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.

Some of this seems familiar. AOC has discussed whether it’s best that people stop having children in light of climate change and her view of capitalism probably isn’t all that different from MacCormack’s. But I do find it interesting that MacCormack seems interested in doing away with identity politics. From what I can tell, she sees this kind of hierarchy as inherently destructive because hierarchies of humans also extend to other living things. Her goal seems to be to flatten those hierarchies among humans and then between humans and animals.

That’s pretty extreme, obviously, but extreme is interesting in small doses. I do wonder what kind of mischief adherents to this new view of humanity might get up to at some point. The combination of human extinction as an end goal and a push toward real-world activism seems like a potentially combustible mix when it trickles down from academia to the streets.

We saw some pretty extreme behavior (blocking traffic and climbing on top of commuter trains) from the “Extinction Rebellion” crowd last fall. But MacCormack apparently sees the group as too tame because their activism is basically focused on saving the plant for people while she wants to save the planet from people. MacCormack told Cambridge News, “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it. There is a lot of agreement that these changes might work for the world, but when it imposes on people, it becomes proactive.” I’d call that a hint, but what do I know.

MacCormack seems like a bit of a character. Her previous work has to do with sex, cinema, and occultism and she dresses like someone who’d fit in at a Cure concert more than an academic. To each his own. As I said, I find it interesting in small doses, but fringe academic ideas have a long history of spreading and having an impact on culture at large. Part of me does worry about what becomes of ideas like this if they start to catch on.

History prof: Founders’ intent of 2nd Amendment not to guarantee private gun ownership

What passes for ‘intelligence’ these days in America’s universities.

Famous Quotes From The Founding Fathers On Our Right To Bear Arms

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” — Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

William Grayson, of Virginia:
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” — Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
RELATED: Congressman Mo Brooks Sticks To His Guns After Alexandria Shooting

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

AND THE LAST QUOTE WHICH SHOULD PARTICULAR APPLY TO THE “PROFESSOR”

PatrickHenry
Patrick Henry, of Virginia:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention

 

  • An American University professor recently published a book in which he advocates to “repeal the Second Amendment.”
  • Allan Lichtman compares the constitutional right to prohibition and says the NRA “hijacked” the Second Amendment.

At American University in Washington DC, a history professor recently wrote a book in which he advocates to “repeal the Second Amendment.”

Professor Allan J. Lichtman published his book, Repeal the Second Amendment: The Case for a Safer America,  in January. It focuses on the perceived need to abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Lichtman’s book acknowledges gun violence in America and asserts that “the real problem is that which gun control advocates fear to name: the Second Amendment.”

“Repeal will take a concerted effort from Americans who are well briefed on the true history of the Second Amendment”

In an excerpt of the book published by MSNBC, the professor writes, “Repeal of the Second Amendment is not only right, but realistic.” He argues that the gun control movement would have an easier path were the Second Amendment repealed.

[RELATED: UCLA prof: ‘I don’t see the Second Amendment as absolute, just like I don’t see the First Amendment as absolute’]

Lichtman’s also claims that America’s founders did not intend through the Second Amendment to guarantee gun ownership rights to individual Americans.  Instead, Lichtman argues that “the NRA hijacked the Second Amendment.”

He claims that the National Rifle Association redefined the interpretation of the Second Amendment a few decades ago in order to gain profit from gun sales. Before this, Lichtman argues that the general intent of the Second Amendment was to cultivate a militia.

Lichtman includes a call to action, stating that “Americans who care about gun safety must now take it back [the Second Amendment].” He compares the potential to repeal the Second Amendment with the past repeal of prohibition.

“Repeal will take a concerted effort from Americans who are well briefed on the true history of the Second Amendment,” he writes.

Lichtman has been named a Distinguished Professor of History by American University and has published other books, including The Case for Impeachment in 2017, which laid out Lichtman’s various arguments for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

He was also a consultant for Sen. Ted Kennedy and presidential candidate Al Gore.

Campus Reform reached out to Lichtman for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.

Proposed Tennessee bill would allow students to have concealed guns on campus

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) – A proposed bill, if passed, would allow students to have a concealed carry gun at public higher education institutions. The idea sparked conversations inside and outside the classroom at the University of Tennessee

“It makes me a little nervous, guns, in general, make me nervous, I’m just an anxious person,” Gray, a student, said.

Some students said they were indifferent about guns on campus. Many students were for the move saying it’s a means of self-defense.

The proposal states students would need a carry permit and be in compliance with state law. Some students said lawmakers could use their energy elsewhere.

“Having concealed carry, but also not having the options of suitable mental health access is not a good idea,”

Guns on campus was a hot button topic back in 2016 when lawmakers were deciding whether or not to allow faculty and staff to carry. More than 80 percent of UTK faculty, who were asked in a poll, did not want guns on campus.

The final decision was not on their side as lawmakers passed the 2016 bill.

If passed, the new bill would go into effect July 1, 2020.

Following legalized campus carry, universities report no increase in violence on their campuses

In some instances, crime actually dropped

Though popular belief holds that more guns on college campuses will lead to an uptick in gun violence, several universities have reported no such increase even after their states legalized the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds.

According to the website of Armed Campuses, a pro-gun-control initiative that tracks firearm policies at universities across the country, seven state legislatures have broadly permitted concealed carry on public university grounds. Five more have instituted limited campus carry regimes. Ten states prohibit campus carry altogether, while the remainder either allow the university to set the policy or else mandate that the guns must be left in locked cars.

The College Fix reached out to multiple public universities in states where campus carry is legal. All of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.

Emporia State University is located in Emporia, Kansas. Armed Campuses states that, in that state, “any individual 21 years or older who is otherwise legally allowed to possess a concealed handgun may do so in any public facility, or on any public grounds unless proper security measures are in place.”

Reached via email, Emporia State campus spokeswoman Gwen Larson told The College Fix that the school has observed no change in gun violence since that rule was instituted. “Emporia State did not have gun violence before the law changed, and there has been no violence since the law changed,” she wrote.

Asked if there had been an uptick in campus carry since the policy change, Larson responded that she couldn’t say.

“There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. Kansas law prohibits tracking people who are carrying concealed handguns or making inquiries about who may or may not be carrying,” she wrote.

No gun violence increase, no ‘concerns’ regarding campus guns

Utah’s Dixie State University, located in St. George, has also not seen any increase in gun murders or injuries since guns were allowed on campus there, according to campus law enforcement. Utah law has actually permitted campus carry for nearly a decade and a half.

Dixie State’s campus Chief of Police Blair Barfuss told The College Fix via email that there has been no “reported or observed increase with gun violence on campus” related to the state’s campus carry policy.

“DSU does restrict firearms in on-campus residential housing units, unless the individual possesses a state issued firearms concealed carry permit, which is allowed by state statute,” Barfuss said.

He added that the university, like Emporia State, “does not track who on campus possess state issued concealed carry firearm permits.”

“This would be very difficult to do due to DSU students coming from many states across the country. We have not seen any increase in reports of firearms on campus, and we have not been made aware of any concerns regarding concealed carry permit holders by students or staff, related to Utah state legal statute.”

The Fix reached out to Valdosta State University, a public university in Valdosta, Georgia, to inquire about its experiences with concealed carry. Armed Campuses says that state has permitted concealed carry on college campuses since July of 2017.

Campus spokesman Keith Warburg provided The Fix with a letter from Steve Wrigley, the chancellor of the University System of Georgia. That letter, dated May 24, 2017, affirms the general right to carry a gun on public campuses while outlining several locations in which guns are still forbidden, including residence halls as well as classrooms in which high school students are studying.

Asked if the university has experienced an increase in gun violence since the legalization of concealed carry, Warburg did not directly answer. Instead he provided The Fix with the school’s 2019 Annual Security and Fire Safety report. Data from that report show no increase in murder or manslaughter on the school’s campus from 2016-2018; in all years it was zero. Aggravated assaults on campus dropped from three in 2016 to one in 2018. Burglaries dropped from 22 in 2016 to nine in 2018.

The lack of evidence that liberalized campus carry laws lead to more campus violence stands in contrast to the often-heated rhetoric of gun control activists. The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, an activist group partnered with Armed Campuses, has claimed that efforts to allow concealed weapons on campus are “dangerous.” That group says it is working “to protect American’s colleges and universities.”

On its website, Armed Campuses lists a study examining campus crime rates following the passage of liberalized concealed carry laws. The study also looks at state-level and national crime statistics. The report concludes that available data “do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Armed Campuses did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday morning.

Harvard Law Students Avoid Applying For Clerkships With Trump-Appointed Judges.

The is a very good thing as it will reduce inequality in the legal profession by providing opportunities for those law students outside the cesspools of elitism. Cutting off their supercilious noses to spite their faces is never boring.

Boston Globe, Some Harvard Law School Students Are Avoiding Applying to Clerkships With Trump-Appointed Judges:

Used to be that the promise of earning a sterling line on a resume and connections to stars of the legal profession was enough to lure Harvard law students to federal clerkships.

But recently, when Harvard Law School was urging its students to apply to work for one of President Trump’s newly appointed judges, it felt the need to offer further incentives: “Next to Lake Tahoe and great skiing!” the job alert read.

But that apparently wasn’t enough. Two days later, in mid-December, the law school again nudged its students to apply for clerkships with federal judges, noting that some judges, including two Trump appointees, had received no Harvard applications — calling them “wasted opportunities.”

As Trump reshapes the federal judiciary with staunch conservatives and controversial picks, some Harvard Law School students appear to be thinking twice about applying for clerk jobs with them, and passing up what are generally considered plum positions. …

[S]ome legal scholars worry that the reluctance of students at one of the nation’s premier law schools to clerk for Trump-appointed judges, first reported by Bloomberg Law, could further polarize the legal profession and do the country more harm than good. …

For law students, clerking for a federal or even state judge has traditionally been a way to fast-track their careers and boost their salaries. Nearly 90 of Harvard’s 570 graduates in 2018 had federal clerkships. Students apply months or even years ahead for the competitive, one-year positions. …

But as more Trump judges take the bench — he has already overseen the confirmation of 50 appellate court judges, more than any president in recent memory at this point in his term — law school students who are gay or have had abortions may have serious conflicts working with judges who have been vocally opposed to those issues, Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote recently in a blog post.

Conservative group has enough, sues New Jersey school over ‘unconstitutional’ policies.

A New Jersey university has been named in a lawsuit targeting an “unconstitutional” speech policy.

The Young Americans for Liberty chapter at Montclair State University, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, filed the suit Wednesday after a demonstration on campus was allegedly shut down by campus police in September, according to a  press release from the ADF. .

“it allows the university to deny or delay a student’s request for permission for any reason.” Tweet This
The lawsuit states that “the university’s unconstitutional policies restrict and suppress student speech.”

In the suit and the press release, the group documented an incident from September 10, in which three students demonstrating against gun-free zones were allegedly stopped by a campus police officer for not having the proper permission to speak.

The policy, called the Demonstrations and Assemblies Policy, stated that anyone, especially groups or organizations, should give two weeks of advance notice to the dean of students with their “planned objective” of the event. The dean would then review the application and either approve or reject the application or, the suit alleges, modify the demonstration of “any reason …. within any set timeframe.”

“The students, affiliated with Young Americans for Liberty,” the press release stated, “are challenging the two-week requirement because it unconstitutionally suppresses all speech and because it allows the university to deny or delay a student’s request for permission for any reason.”

The suit also alleges that the Office of the Dean “has the power to selectively enforce the Speech Permit Policy based upon the content and viewpoint of students’ speech,” and called the policy an “unconstitutional prior restraint.”

In addition to the speech policy, the suit also targeted the Student Government Association, in which the suit alleges that the use of a “class system” would prevent certain groups, such as YAL from accessing funds based on their viewpoints.

“The University’s student organization regulations authorize the SGA to reward favored groups with a high ‘class’ status,” the suit continued, “while disfavoring groups like YAL with a low status which excludes them from many of the benefits enjoyed by other student organizations.”

The suit details the ranked class system as split up into four class systems, in which Class IV organizations could not request any money from SGA, while Class I organizations could receive upward of $5,000 for their yearly budget funded by student fees.

The suit also warned that the SGA had “no objective guidelines” regarding the classification of organizations or whether or not they receive funds from SGA, meaning that the club’s viewpoints could be grounds for a club’s disqualification from receiving funds.

A third area the suit covered was targeted at the university’s “Bias Education Response Taskforce.”

The suit also stated that the BERT policy would be “preventing plaintiffs from engaging in other core political speech” because of the lack of definition for “harassment, intimidation or bullying” and the college to issue any discipline “from probation to expulsion.”

Students for 2A Tell Anti-Gunners to ‘Come and Take It

Not even three weeks ago the National Rifle Association (NRA) conducted a soft launch of the Students for 2A group at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit. In just a short period of time, the newly-formed organization has gained momentum amongst college students ages 18 to 24 and garnered more than 15,000 followers across various social media platforms.

The message is simple: the anti-gun left continually launches attacks at law-abiding gun owners. They want to ban commonly-owned firearms, like the AR-15, and make universal background checks a reality. But the young adults are fighting back for their Second Amendment rights.

A montage of various students explains exactly why the organization was started.

“Every day on college campuses across America, students like me are demonized, attacked and silenced by the ‘tolerant’ left,” students in the montage explain. “But we have something they don’t have: facts. So-called ‘universal’ background checks will never be universal because criminals do not comply with the law. Despite the narrative being pushed by the anti-gun left, unintentional firearm fatalities among young people are near historic lows.”

“Americans regularly use firearms for self-defense up to over one million times per year. There has never been a more important time for students like me to speak out,” the narrators explained. “We are law-abiding Americans and we demand the freedom to defend ourselves. So let us be clear to all anti-gun extremists trying to destroy our rights: you will never succeed. We will always fight back.”

“And, by the way, my rights don’t end where your feelings begin,” the students said. “Come and take it.”

 

 

In one Ohio county, teachers now carry guns in 5 school districts

This year, school boards at Garaway Local Schools and Claymont City Schools approved the safety measure. They join Newcomerstown Exempted Village Schools, which started arming staff members in 2013, Indian Valley Local Schools (2017) and Tuscarawas Valley Local Schools (2018).

As 2019 draws to a close, the number of school districts in one northeastern Ohio county that have authorized staff members to carry guns on school property has grown to five.

This year, school boards at Garaway Local Schools and Claymont City Schools approved the safety measure. They join Newcomerstown Exempted Village Schools, which started arming staff members in 2013, Indian Valley Local Schools (2017) and Tuscarawas Valley Local Schools (2018). All are in Tuscarawas County.

Newcomerstown Superintendent Jeff Staggs continues to believe it’s a good idea.

“When seconds count in responding to a dangerous event, the faster the event is stopped more students and staff stay alive,” he said. “I’m still in favor of a highly trained armed staff along with multiple other layers in the school safety plan.

“We continue to train and tweak our school safety plan to meet the new issues that schools face every year. The sheriff’s office has been a huge help in our training program with our journey to get better at school safety.”

Garaway Superintendent James Millet agreed.

“I still think this is a valuable decision to protect Garaway students and staff,” he said. “At Garaway Schools, the safety of each and every child within this community is our district’s highest priority. We are continually examining safety measures for our school district and looking for ways to improve.

“We believe that armed staff is one way to provide a quick response and opportunity to protect people in an attack.”

He said the decision has been well-received at Garaway.

“There is not one perfect solution, but we will try to address all aspects of safety with vigor,” Millet said. “We will be adding a safety dog in January. This will provide another way to respond to an attack as well as prevent an attack by identifying weapons before they enter our school.”

A recent report by the Associated Press raised questions about the safety of arming teachers.

Experts say anyone carrying guns, including teachers, needs ongoing, intensive training to be able to handle their firearms proficiently and respond appropriately in stressful settings — and many law enforcement officers don’t even get that.

“The idea that anybody can go to Joe Smith’s School of Shooting for a day or a week and become proficient at shooting a handgun in a life-and-death situation is a little bit absurd,” Doug Tangen, firearms program manager at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, the state police academy, told the AP.

Shooting a gun requires psychomotor skills that must be practiced over and over, he said.

Tuscarawas County Sheriff Orvis Campbell said he believes that area educators who have been armed have the training and skills necessary to keep everyone safe.

Teachers there have gone through FASTER training, provided by the Buckeye Firearms Association. FASTER stands for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response.
<
Police officers who go to a police academy receive 60 hours of training on firearms, and two days of that is in the classroom, Campbell said. By comparison, area teachers have been given three separate weeks of training.

“I put guys through one of them, and it’s very good,” he said.

“All of them are qualifying at at least the same level as every peace officer (in Ohio), and all of them have kept up so far,” Campbell said.

The staff members are required to keep their gun on their person at all times. They are not allowed to talk about it, and they’re not allow to show their weapon, even to other teachers.

He noted that all of the districts have given his office the ability to say two things — that a staff member cannot carry now because that person is not ready, and that a staff member cannot carry at all because the sheriff’s office doesn’t think the person is skilled enough.

The sheriff said arming staff is a good idea because it’s rare to hear about a teacher running away when there is a shooting.

College Students Know More About Firearms–and Rights–than Gun-Grabbing Politicians

In a matter of days, lawmakers in Virginia could pass some of the most radical gun control bills in the nation, the impact of which will be felt across the country.

As a recent college graduate who founded Students for Trump from my freshman dorm room, I remain active on college campuses today as co-chair of Turning Point Action. Everywhere I go, I meet young people who are closely following events in Richmond. Many of them are genuinely scared police are coming for their guns. During our lifetime, we’ve watched lawmakers chip away at our rights, and we are here to say, “Not today, Gov. Northam. Not today.”

Like many in my generation, I didn’t grow up with firearms. I was introduced to them in a high school ROTC program, which focused heavily on the Constitution. I learned the basics of firearms and self-defense. Perhaps more importantly, that class taught me the Second Amendment guarantees all the other rights in the Constitution.

As I visit with college students across the country, I am struck by how informed and educated they are about their rights. We may be young and inexperienced, but we know what’s going on around the world. In Hong Kong and Venezuela, we watch governments oppress their unarmed citizens. In our own country, we watch as state and local politicians exploit tragedies to pass more gun control laws. We watch New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg buy his way into power and influence across the country………..

Young people are fed up with politicians who exploit tragedies to push more failed gun control schemes. We’ve spent our youth watching politicians chip away at our rights. We will not stand idly by and let this continue. My generation is engaged, energized, and willing to stand up and fight for our rights in Virginia, and around the country. We are not only watching and listening to everything unfolding in Richmond, we engaged in this fight. Many of us are proud to be part of the NRA’s new student group, Students For 2A. We will never let a tyrannical government take away our rights.

Colleges Are Dropping Testing, Curriculum Standards in Order to Create ‘Diversity’

Colleges and universities are changing both admissions and curriculum requirements in order to create more ‘diversity’ within their student bodies. These changes often involve lowering of standards, and an implication that students from certain backgrounds cannot score as high on tests as their peers.

1.  SAT spikes social justice-themed ‘adversity scores’…kind of

“Mr. Singer’s actions exemplified the pernicious effect of racial preferences on the college admissions process.”    

This year, the College Board ruled that it would not go forward with adding the proposed controversial “adversity score,”  which would add points to a student’s SAT/ACT score based on his or her socioeconomic background. After criticism from many students and parents concerned not only about the implication that certain groups need to handicap their test scores but also about the creation of unfair disadvantages for students who don’t fit the ‘diversity’ bill, the CEO of College Board decided to instead use a system by a different name: “Landscape.” This program doesn’t assign an “adversity score,” but has the same goal of considering socioeconomic factors into SAT and ACT scores. The factors considered are housing stability, median family income, household structure, college attendance, education levels, and crime.

2. Judge recommends “bias training” preceding Harvard lawsuit

Harvard found itself in the middle of a major scandal this year, after being accused of bias against Asian Americans via the university’s affirmative action admissions program. A federal judge ultimately sided with Harvard and suggested that a mandatory bias training for the school’s admissions officers should be implemented to give every student a fair chance. Edward Blum, President of plaintiff group Students for Fair Admissions, says he will be taking this case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as he believes Harvard does indeed have a history of discriminating against Asian American applicants in its effort to ensure the admission of applicants of other minority ethnicities.

3. Stanford pushes separate physics course for minority students

This year Stanford pushed a separate physics course to ensure retention of “underrepresented” physics majors. The course is a modified version of a standard required course, with additional class time and “learning assistants” hired to offer extra help with coursework. The school stated that “students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers,” and that “the difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in.”

4. Ditching SAT/ACT requirement to promote diversity

To increase diversity, Colorado College has decided to make it “optional” to submit SAT/ACT scores. “Standardized test scores do not always reflect the academic potential of students from disadvantaged backgrounds,” said one professor. The school suggests these tests limit minorities, and therefore that removing this requirement makes it easier to reach those with a disadvantaged background. By removing the SAT/ACT requirement, the school claims that their numbers of freshmen have doubled. These numbers do not say, however, the academic success the institution is experiencing

5. Using affirmative action to get a “competitive advantage”

The man at the center of this years’ college admissions scandal, Rick Singer, reportedly not only helped celebrities get their children into college by lying about athletic involvement but also instructed them to lie about their ethnicities. If he was working with a white family, Singer would reportedly tell them to lie about their race on college applications to give that student a better competitive advantage.

“Mr. Singer’s actions exemplified the pernicious effect of racial preferences on the college admissions process,” said Dion J. Pierre, a conservative research associate, adding that that Asian and Caucasian Americans have less edge than the other races while millions of dollars in grants and scholarships are given to students solely based on skin color.

Pro-gun message supplants pro-transgender slogan on U. Virginia bridge.

The University of Virginia’s Beta Bridge has played host to student messages for some 50 years. Most recently, the bridge featured the mural “PROTECT BLACK TRANS WOMEN,” but this was painted over during the weekend with a pro-Second Amendment slogan.

According to The Cavalier Daily, the terms “2A” and “GUNS” were painted, while “WOMEN” was crossed out. The original message, put up by the SABLE Society, was repainted, but was again modified with the pro-gun terms.

The report notes the gun message appears to reference various Virginia towns threatening to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” if the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature follows through with (allegedly) unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

It is not yet known who is responsible for the pro-gun message.

UVA spokesman Brian Coy said that although the bridge “is a long recognized public forum that may on occasion cause controversy or disagreement,” the university acknowledges “that people, particularly black trans women, feel demeaned or threatened by this message and the way it appeared.”

Figures Don’t Lie, But…
…you know the rest.

There’s an article about the upcoming “Student Debt Tsunami” that will destroy the American economy in the near future.

Of course, the numbers are used to argue the case for “Free” College for All. I don’t need to point out to readers of this blog the stupidity of that idea.

One ‘heart-rending’ factoid used in the article is that Black students will be ‘unfairly’ the biggest recipients of the crash. The figures are below.

Student Loan Default Rates Are Highest For African Americans
The default rate among African American graduates is more than five times the rate of white graduates.
BACHELOR’S DEGREE GRADUATES
TOTAL AMOUNT BORROWED
DEFAULT RATE
Black $55,667 20.6%
Hispanic or Latino $28,599 8.6%
White $26,005 4%
Asian $30,612 1.4%
Notes
Debt and default among bachelor’s degree graduates 12 years after college entry, 2004 entry cohort.
Source: Judith Scott-Clayton, Brookings Institution

Several considerations come to mind:
Black students are borrowing more than twice as much as White students, which might lead one to ask:
Are Black students majoring in subjects that pay off at higher levels than White students?
The short and dirty answer – No. A study of college majors, and the proportions of students by ethnicity and sex, is here. Very scholarly, very much supportive of the idea that minorities do not major in fields that will pay adequately with just a bachelor’s degree.

That’s a hard thing to get minorities/women to understand. A college degree is not just a college degree – major field of study counts.

I once had a discussion with an English teacher, who was indignant that her brother, with ‘only’ a bachelor’s degree, made considerably more than she, with a Master’s in English from a prestigious university.

I asked what her brother had majored in.

Electrical Engineering, I was told.

I diplomatically suggested that the field of engineering was short of people to fill those jobs, and might, therefore, pay more.

After being lectured about how pay should have NO relation to the number of applicants, but should be the same for the same ‘level’ of education required, I shrugged, and left.

She wasn’t unique. MANY women, and minorities, have those egalitarian principles. Of course, that does inhibit upward mobility for individuals, but, hey – they keep their ‘pure’ ideals.

So, how should the student debt crisis be handled?

Put a ceiling on the amount that can be borrowed. Limit that amount to a MAX equal to the amount that the average person in that field earns after 5 years. No loan guarantees after that amount.

Also, put a maximum on the amount that can be borrowed each year equal to a year’s tuition, minus other financial aid. If a college really wants a kid to attend, let them pony up a GRANT for room and board.

What does this mean? Fewer kids going to ‘away’ colleges, more attending local ones, including community/tech colleges.

NO money for coursework that is below college level. Let them take those classes at a junior college, before attending a four-year one. Admittance to four-year colleges for the low SAT/ill-prepared dependent on successful completion of an associate’s degree.

Yes, I realize that this will likely KILL Big 10 football/basketball, but some sacrifices have to be made.

Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted

Nothing unusual in busting proggie mythology.

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that “campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them.” Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that “when there are more guns around, there is more risk – it’s as simple as that.”

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply weren’t true. Students just aren’t waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, “all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.” Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in “no sharp increase in violence or intimidation,” and in fact, the following year was “quiet” and “uneventful.”

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that “results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Essentially, it’s now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current “gun-free campus” rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there’s nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus — a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now it’s officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students’ Second Amendment rights doesn’t even make anyone safer.

It’s impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless they’re willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

Following legalized campus carry, universities report no increase in violence on their campuses.

In some instances, crime actually dropped

Though popular belief holds that more guns on college campuses will lead to an uptick in gun violence, several universities have reported no such increase even after their states legalized the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds.

According to the website of Armed Campuses, a pro-gun-control initiative that tracks firearm policies at universities across the country, seven state legislatures have broadly permitted concealed carry on public university grounds. Five more have instituted limited campus carry regimes. Ten states prohibit campus carry altogether, while the remainder either allow the university to set the policy or else mandate that the guns must be left in locked cars.

The College Fix reached out to multiple public universities in states where campus carry is legal. All of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.

Emporia State University is located in Emporia, Kansas. Armed Campuses states that, in that state, “any individual 21 years or older who is otherwise legally allowed to possess a concealed handgun may do so in any public facility, or on any public grounds unless proper security measures are in place.”

Reached via email, Emporia State campus spokeswoman Gwen Larson told The College Fix that the school has observed no change in gun violence since that rule was instituted. “Emporia State did not have gun violence before the law changed, and there has been no violence since the law changed,” she wrote.

Asked if there had been an uptick in campus carry since the policy change, Larson responded that she couldn’t say.

“There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. Kansas law prohibits tracking people who are carrying concealed handguns or making inquiries about who may or may not be carrying,” she wrote.

No gun violence increase, no ‘concerns’ regarding campus guns

Utah’s Dixie State University, located in St. George, has also not seen any increase in gun murders or injuries since guns were allowed on campus there, according to campus law enforcement. Utah law has actually permitted campus carry for nearly a decade and a half.

Dixie State’s campus Chief of Police Blair Barfuss told The College Fix via email that there has been no “reported or observed increase with gun violence on campus” related to the state’s campus carry policy.

“DSU does restrict firearms in on-campus residential housing units, unless the individual possesses a state issued firearms concealed carry permit, which is allowed by state statute,” Barfuss said.

He added that the university, like Emporia State, “does not track who on campus possess state issued concealed carry firearm permits.”

“This would be very difficult to do due to DSU students coming from many states across the country. We have not seen any increase in reports of firearms on campus, and we have not been made aware of any concerns regarding concealed carry permit holders by students or staff, related to Utah state legal statute.”

The Fix reached out to Valdosta State University, a public university in Valdosta, Georgia, to inquire about its experiences with concealed carry. Armed Campuses says that state has permitted concealed carry on college campuses since July of 2017.

Campus spokesman Keith Warburg provided The Fix with a letter from Steve Wrigley, the chancellor of the University System of Georgia. That letter, dated May 24, 2017, affirms the general right to carry a gun on public campuses while outlining several locations in which guns are still forbidden, including residence halls as well as classrooms in which high school students are studying.

Asked if the university has experienced an increase in gun violence since the legalization of concealed carry, Warburg did not directly answer. Instead he provided The Fix with the school’s 2019 Annual Security and Fire Safety report. Data from that report show no increase in murder or manslaughter on the school’s campus from 2016-2018; in all years it was zero. Aggravated assaults on campus dropped from three in 2016 to one in 2018. Burglaries dropped from 22 in 2016 to nine in 2018.

The lack of evidence that liberalized campus carry laws lead to more campus violence stands in contrast to the often-heated rhetoric of gun control activists. The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, an activist group partnered with Armed Campuses, has claimed that efforts to allow concealed weapons on campus are “dangerous.” That group says it is working “to protect American’s colleges and universities.”

On its website, Armed Campuses lists a study examining campus crime rates following the passage of liberalized concealed carry laws. The study also looks at state-level and national crime statistics. The report concludes that available data “do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Armed Campuses did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday morning.

Pamela Karlan lays an egg

This hag was on Hillary’s short list for the Supreme Court. That, if nothing else, should convince anyone with 1/2 a brain just how dangerous demoncraps are.

The impeachment hearings are on, with a spotlight on the three anti-Trump law professors who ranted before Rep. Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary committee on Wednesday.

Their testimonies were a disaster for the Democrats. They proved they were anything but constitutionalists. It took the fourth “witness,” the eloquent Jonathan Turley, to drive that home. These other three were quite the opposite, fans of abrogating most of our founding document.

What will be remembered forever is the condescending arrogance of the professors — Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt.
If there were ever an expose of the kind of people who inhabit the ivory towers of academia, this was it.
These three law professors were a flashing neon warning: Do not send your kids to prestigious law schools. People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense.

Nadler did us all a favor, actually: He exposed for all to see just how far gone the American left is. Not one of those three extreme partisans has any knowledge of the actual Constitution nor do they have any respect for it.
That was made very clear on Wednesday. There are numerous constitutionalist scholars Nadler could have called upon — John Eastman, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt — for example. That Jonathan Turley was allowed to speak was a Christmas miracle. Like Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, Turley is the real deal, a non-partisan legal scholar.

What would be hilarious if it were a SNL skit was the “testimony” of Pamela Karlan, a venomous anti-Trump law prof at Stanford, which does not speak well for Stanford.
She was on a short list of Hilllary’s picks for SCOTUS so it is a safe bet that she is angry that HRC lost. She has been onboard every anti-Trump campaign from the day he won the election.
The same goes for Feldman and Gerhardt; they are each on record in favor of impeachment long before President Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine.
Bottom line?
Each of them is a radical leftist plant and Nadler, House Intelligence committee chairman and impeachment master Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi think the American people are so stupid they will be fooled by what they saw on Wednesday.
They are not that stupid. These impeachment junkies have guessed wrong.

Karlan was the most egregiously partisan and thus the most entertaining. Her arguments in favor of impeachment were laughable.
She was so annoying she made Elizabeth Warren seem warm and fuzzy.
She is on record in favor of impeachment from day one.
That Stanford employs this woman is not comforting.
That Harvard employs Feldman is distressing.
Karlan made what she clearly thought was a clever joke about Barron Trump’s name.
How low will they go? This low. Gutter low.
Karlan’s career should be over as of Wednesday for she is not a teacher, she is a propagandist.
Her students will not be taught to grasp the wisdom of the Constituion, they will learn to dismiss it as a document written by old white men. Karlan and her fellow travelers are a menace to society.

It calls to light that Nadler’s initial impeachment hearings were a disaster so Pelosi handed that off to Schiff’s intel committee for the deed, right there an abrogation of the Constituiton.
That turned out to be an even bigger disaster. Schiff called up people who don’t like President Trump because he did not listen to them, whose feelings were hurt!
Trump actually thinks for himself and acts on his best instincts, a no-no in Schiff’s world. So far, given all the economic and foreign policy successes, his instincts have served him well. This is very likely what has driven the left to madness, President Trump’s success on nearly every issue.
No matter how hard Pelosi and her colleagues try to sabotage him, he is making America greater and safer. This enrages the left; they are apoplectic that this outsider is exposing them as the saboteurs they are.
They hate all of us who voted for Trump and they mean to punish us for our crime of loving our country as founded.

Nadler may have assumed that bringing Pamela Karlan to speak was a stroke of brilliance but she was the nail in the coffin of impeachment. She, even more than the two men, is the epitome of the contempt the left has for the American people.
Her arrogance, her oh-so-planned but unwise and cruel joke about President Trump’s son as her punchline should be all anyone needs to hear to understand exactly who these people are.
These are not the people who should be entrusted with the education of our young people.
They are not teaching them to think; they are teaching them to capitulate unthinkingly to their progressive will.
If their students resist, they are pilloried, made outcasts on their campuses.

One only had to watch Schiff’s show trial to realize they will not allow an opposing witness to speak.
Schiff is a Stalinist; what is so frightening is that no one in his own party is standing up and screaming STOP!
That pretty much says all we need to know about the Democratic party today.
Like Obama promised, they mean to transform America into something it was never meant to be: fascist.
Our left is now officially, openly fascist. They mean to control how we live, what we eat, what we drive, how much of our money we can keep, what we can say, write, tweet, and think. Thought crimes are on their agenda.

That Donald Trump was elected was divine intervention. The miracle of his win was a stopgap, an interruption of the left’s takeover of our republic.
Unless all Americans become enlightened and involved, these enemies will win.
They will ruin this once great nation with their toxic progressivism, their stealth fascism.
If Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi think their pet law profs did them proud on Wednesday, they are sadly mistaken. They actually exposed the totalitarian underbelly of our vicious and intolerant anti-Trump left.
Karlan, Feldman and Gerhardt willingly exposed the intellectual vacuity of our professorial class.
In the end, the “hearing” on Wednesday was a grand failure for the anti-Trump left and an eye-opening education for all Americans who watched the grotesque pompousness of the left.
Pamela Karlan is their poster-girl. She must be so proud.
In fact, she will be a laughingstock for the rest of her life.

Ambrose Bierce, ever a brilliant observer of the human condition wrote: “They say that hens do cackle loudest when there is nothing vital in the eggs they have laid.”!
Pamela Karlan sure laid an egg today.

Democrat Impeachment ‘Witness’ Noah Feldman Previously Claimed Sharia Law Superior, More “Humane” Than Western Laws

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

Noah Feldman, the first impeachment ‘witness’ the Dems rolled out on Wednesday not only called for Trump’s impeachment shortly after Trump was sworn in, he actually argued in a NY Times op-ed titled, “Why Shariah?” that Islamic Sharia law is more humane than US law.

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, bashed legal systems created by Western countries including the United States and argued Sharia law is more ‘just’ and ‘fair’ than the US Supreme Court.

Mr. Feldman actually believes that a medieval system of laws that chops off the hands of thieves, stones ‘adulterous women,’ blames the woman when she is raped by a man, publicly hangs and tosses homosexuals off of buildings, is more “progressive” and “humane” than Western laws.

“In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation,” Feldman argued.

Learn more about RevenueStripe…

Feldman also claimed that the West “needs Shariah and Islam.”

“It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good,” he added.

Read more of Feldman’s NY Times 2008 op-ed:

FOR GENERATIONS, WESTERN STUDENTS OF THE TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE SCHOLARS COULD OFFER NO MEANINGFUL CHECK ON THE RULER. AS ONE HISTORIAN HAS RECENTLY PUT IT, ALTHOUGH SHARIAH FUNCTIONED AS A CONSTITUTION, “THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE,” BECAUSE NEITHER SCHOLARS NOR SUBJECTS COULD “COMPEL THEIR RULER TO OBSERVE THE LAW IN THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT.”
BUT ALMOST NO CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ENABLES JUDGES OR NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS TO “COMPEL” THE OBEDIENCE OF AN EXECUTIVE WHO CONTROLS THE MEANS OF FORCE. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NO ARMY BEHIND IT.
INSTITUTIONS THAT LACK THE POWER OF THE SWORD MUST USE MORE SUBTLE MEANS TO CONSTRAIN EXECUTIVES.
LIKE THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWERS, THE TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC BALANCE WAS MAINTAINED BY WORDS AND IDEAS, AND NOT JUST BY FORCIBLE COMPULSION.

SO TODAY’S MUSLIMS ARE NOT BEING COMPLETELY FANCIFUL WHEN THEY ACT AND SPEAK AS THOUGH SHARIAH CAN STRUCTURE A CONSTITUTIONAL STATE SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. ONE BIG REASON THAT ISLAMIST POLITICAL PARTIES DO SO WELL RUNNING ON A SHARIAH PLATFORM IS THAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS RECOGNIZE THAT SHARIAH ONCE AUGURED A BALANCED STATE IN WHICH LEGAL RIGHTS WERE RESPECTED.

Feldman was widely criticized for this New York Times piece which was an excerpt from his book, “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State” for “promoting” Sharia law.

This is who the Democrats trotted out as a legal scholar and Constitutional expert to sell the American public on impeaching President Trump. Let that sink in.