Latest dispatch from the Ministry of Truth

You can't make this up:

The Guardian reported:

"The kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian school girls, and the massacre of as many as 300 civilians in the town of Gamboru Ngala, by the militant al-Qaeda affiliated group, Boko Haram, has shocked the world.

But while condemnations have rightly been forthcoming from a whole range of senior figures from celebrities to government officials, less attention has been paid to the roots of the crisis.

Instability in Nigeria, however, has been growing steadily over the last decade – and one reason is climate change. In 2009, a UK Department for International Development (Dfid) study warned that climate change could contribute to increasing resource shortages in the country due to land scarcity from desertification, water shortages, and mounting crop failures.

A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmeda “basic causal mechanism” that “links climate change with violence in Nigeria.” The report concludes:

“…poor responses to climatic shifts create shortages of resources such as land and water. Shortages are followed by negative secondary impacts, such as more sickness, hunger, and joblessness. Poor responses to these, in turn, open the door to conflict.”

Unfortunately, a business-as-usual scenario sees Nigeria’s climate undergoing “growing shifts in temperature, rainfall, storms, and sea levels throughout the twenty-first century. Poor adaptive responses to these shifts could help fuel violent conflict in some areas of the country.”

Not one mention of "Islam" or "Muslims". The root cause of Boko Haram is... global warming.

My usual inexhaustible capacity for commentary fails me.

"But it may be too late"

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman demonstrates that there's no I.Q. test to be a columnist. His column, with my commentary.

Supreme Court blesses town prayer 

Thanks to immigration, America's religious makeup has changed. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are much more common than they once were. In 20 or 30 years, it's possible these groups will attain numerical dominance in a town here or there.

There's probably already Muslim dominance in Deerborn, and various non-Christian dominance in neighborhoods in many of our major cities. Freedom of religion is like that. It's a good thing.

Many Christians will applaud today's Supreme Court decision allowing a town council in Greece, N.Y. to begin its meetings with an invocation by a "chaplain of the month," even if the invited clergy choose to proclaim "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.” It's nice to have the government publicly endorse your faith. But if it can champion Christianity today, why not Islam tomorrow?

I have no problem with Islamic prayer at public meetings. It's completely Constitutional, and I respect other people's religious practice.

If Christians attending the local city council meeting had to sit through a prayer to Allah or Vishnu, they would most likely feel excluded and offended. But somehow they think non-Christians should have to put up with the equivalent without complaint or recourse.

Why would I feel excluded and offended by other people praying according to their faith? This happens often in my life-- my in-laws are Jewish, and I often attend family events at which Jewish prayers are said. I don't feel excluded at all. In fact, I feel privileged to be invited. They know I'm Catholic, and I'm honored to be a part of their worship. I was at a niece's Bat Mitzvah recently, and when we were praying in the temple, I said a silent prayer to Jesus and enjoyed the service. If I were at a government event in, say, an Orthodox Jewish community or a Muslim community and the prayer was Jewish or Muslim, I'd listen quietly and respectfully and say the Lord's Prayer to myself. I like it when other people pray. It doesn't exclude or offend me. What does exclude and offend me is when an atheist calls a federal judge who threatens to fine or jail anyone who prays. That's exclusion and offense.

Five Supreme Court justices members agree, with three of the four dissents coming from justices who know something about religious discrimination, being Jewish. The fourth, Sonia Sotomayor, apparently does not belong to a church.

What could Chapman possibly mean about "religious discrimination" against Jews in the U.S.? Jews prosper in the U.S.. Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan are Jewish. They have lived enormously successful, even privileged, lives. Jews are highly over-represented on the Court. Two percent of the population is Jewish. One third of the court is Jewish. In what way have Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan experienced discrimination? What a stupid thing to say. Now there is one person on the Court who has experienced real discrimination, and still is attacked for his race. Clarence Thomas has been attacked racially, by Democrats, for decades.

This is one case where being in the majority can blind one to the perspective of the minority. Christians may someday find out how it feels to be on the other side. Then they will remember what Jesus said about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it may be too late.

"Too late" for what? Too late for Christians to be paranoid anti-religious bigots, like atheists?

Try to understand what this moron is saying. He is asserting that Christians should oppose the Court's honest interpretation of the Constitution, which plainly permits government prayer,  because he believes that Christians should allow their paranoia and bigotry against other faiths to determine their opinions on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Chapman is saying this: 'Christians, you shouldn't be so happy about this interpretation of the Constitution, not because it is an incorrect interpretation, but because it allows people you hate and fear to pray in public.'

What offensive swill.

Bottom line: the Constitution says what it says, regardless of our bigotry and paranoia. Public government prayer is constitutional, period. And Christians overwhelmingly do welcome prayers from other faiths-- how many lawsuits have Christians filed trying to stop other people from praying? Our nemesis here isn't Jews or Muslims or Hindus who might get to say a prayer or two at our city council meetings.

Our nemesis is atheists with a totalitarian itch who violate the Constitution and try to strip citizens' rights to pray in public, and columnists who write highly repellant swill that plays to Americans' worst instincts on the assumption that Christians hate and fear other religions as much as atheists do.

"#BringBackOurBalls"

Mark Steyn at his best.

Excerpt:

... The California schools superintendent who wanted his Eighth Graders to turn in essays arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen is called Mohammad Z Islam. That's why they got the assignment, not because they wanted to turn themselves into the Oxford Union. As Laura Rosen Cohen pointed out, there are all kinds of lively topics Mr Cooke might propose for our schools: Did Mohammed exist? What's the deal with his nine-year-old bride? But in the real world even mild questioning of whether Islam is a "religion of peace" is beyond the pale, and across the Continent the Holocaust is disappearing from school curricula. 

That's the problem. There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side win[s] everything else.

Imponderable question of the week: why is L.A. schools superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam still employed? 

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there!

Please don't forget your mom today!

She's the Apple of his eye

Man's Court Battle To Marry His Laptop

...He added: "If anything, my marriage to a machine possesses less of a risk, since a possible acrimonious divorce proceeding could be avoided, if the marriage fails."

I don't know. His spouse-to-be seems awfully calculating to me. I think she's just attracted to his power. 

There is no place for racists on the Supreme Court

Kansas City Star commentator Mary Sanchez, with my commentary:

Good for Sonia Sotomayor. 

She called out her U.S. Supreme Court peers for their dismissive attitudes toward our nation’s troubling racial history and their wishful thinking on how far we have come in such matters. 

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination," Sotomayor wrote in a withering 58-page dissenting opinion.

Sotomayor has ruled in the highest court in the land that race should be a central factor in admissions at state universities. It is a plainly racist viewpoint.

How's that for 'speaking openly and candidly on the subject of race'?

Eight states have outlawed race as a consideration in admissions at state universities. The court’s decision opens the door to voting majorities in other states to reach the same conclusion, without considering the historical burdens many minority people still struggle with — a stark break from the court’s past role as a guardian of fairness and justice for all.

Consideration of historical burdens with which minority people still struggle is for the people and legislatures to consider, in referendums and legislation, respectively.

Sotomayor's job as a jurist is to rule based on the law and the Constitution, both of which she flouted.

By writing her brave dissent, Sotomayor illustrated for America what she meant in a controversial remark she made during her Senate confirmation hearings. Remember that quote? The one where she said that a Latina jurist might "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." 

That prediction has come true.

Bizarrely, Sotomayor believes that Wiselatinahood somehow serves as a basis for interpretation of the law and of the Constitution. Wisecaucasianhood, or Wisemalehood, or WiseWASPhood, seem not to have the same salubrious effect on jurisprudence.

Affirmative action applies not merely to college admissions, but now to judicial rulings, it seems.

I can't think of a more compelling reason to impeach her and remove her from the bench.

In this case, she showed herself to be a better guardian of a long legal legacy the high court set down in numerous prior decisions: protecting minorities from discriminatory laws enacted by electoral majorities. She accused her peers of abandoning that legacy. "We ordinarily understand our precedents to mean what they actually say, not what we later think they could or should have said," she scolded.

What the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act "actually say" is irrelevant to Sotomayor. Both demand colorblind application of the law. Sotomayor's opinion is based entirely on what she "later think[s] they could or should have said".

The fact is that Sotomayor sits at the terminus of a long line of bigots. The electoral majorities who have discriminated against minorities were always progressive Democrat majorities-- progressive Democrat politics has traditionally been the politics of Jim Crow and segregation. Even those rare Progressives who have abjured personal racist politics-- Hubert Humphrey comes to mind-- spent hours in smoky rooms cutting deals with their racist segregationalist buddies to gain power.

Sotomayor sits at the end of a long line of racists. Her judical ruling in favor of racism makes perfect sense in that light. Sotomayor's nightmare is a colorblind system of law.

The good people of Michigan disagree with her, and she is intent on forcing racial discrimination on Michigan despite the colorblind wishes of the citizens of that state.

The court’s ruling does not by any means decide the complicated issues of how race or race-neutral considerations like socio-economic status will be used in college admissions. What it does is change how those decisions can be made. Michigan’s anti-affirmative action law was passed in 2006 by ballot initiative, with the support of 58 percent of Michigan voters. 

In her dissent, Sotomayor pointed out what should be obvious: "Under our Constitution, majority rule is not without limit." Race still matters in America. The burdens of past racial discrimination — in the case of African-Americans, hundreds of years of slavery, terrorization and apartheid — are still palpable in unequal life conditions. And racial, ethnic and gender discrimination continues to abide.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/25/4981992/affirmative-action-finds-brave.html#storylink=cpy

The Constitution and the Civil Rights Act require equal treatment under law without regard to race.

Not a single white applicant to college in Michigan has been convicted of violating the rights of a black person. Yet Sotomayor insists that the government disadvantage white applicants simply because of the color of their skin.

What about the 14th Amendment guarantee of the right to equal protection of the law? What about the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination based on race? What about the 5th Amendment guarantee of the right to due process of law?

How can a government policy disadvantage a white (or Asian) college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any legal finding that the applicant had any personal culpability in any discrimination? How can a government policy advantage a black college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any finding that the applicant had actually suffered any personal harm from said discrimination? On what legal basis should a poor white or Asian kid from a single-parent home be disadvantaged to admit a rich black kid from a successful intact family or a recent black immigrant who personally suffered no racial discrimination in the United States at all?

The attribution of culpability and privilege based on race is the definition of racism, and has no basis in law or ethics.

Sotomayor's job is to apply those crystal-clear principles of black-letter law, which, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, are color-blind.

No one gives a sh*t about Sotomayor's personal views on racism or history. Yet she has scandalously imposed her own bigoted views on her judicial decisions, in plain defiance of the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, all of which demand equal protection of the law.

Asserting merely that the majority should rule, even in cases where it stacks the deck against minorities, is not fair in America. It wasn’t fair a century ago when literacy tests and poll taxes were put in place, and it’s not fair in 2014.

The referendum's repudiation of affirmative action is an explicit rejection of racism. The public is demanding an end to racism in law and government policy, and Sotomayor is demanding that racism in law and government policy continue.

You decide who the racist is.

...That was not all there was to her dissent, however. There was a minute detailing of this country’s long history of discriminatory law, of states and municipalities using the vote of the majority to limit the rights of the minority. It’s a long and lamentable list. Grandfather clauses, good character requirements, poll taxes and gerrymandering provisions all were concocted to keep minorities in their place, and all were invalidated by the court.

Affirmative action is racism, and is one more domino in a long line of progressive Democrat racist policies. It needs to end.

As the nation’s first Latina Supreme Court justice, she is in a unique position to speak to experiences that her colleagues can only read about — and apparently are all too ready to dismiss.

WTF? Clarence Thomas needs to consult Wiselatina Sonya about racism? He can only read about racism?

Justice Thomas-- a man who has fought racism all his life-- was the victim of a high-tech lynching by Sotomayor's racist compatriots in his confirmation hearings because he was a black man who strayed off the Democrat plantation. He doesn't have to read about racism. He has experienced racism first-hand, from Sotomayor's patrons.

She is also a rigorous jurist, and she won’t let the court abandon its proud and righteous legacy without putting up a fight.

Sotomayor is a rigorous racist, not a rigorous jurist, and nothing she wrote in that dissent has anything to do with jurisprudence. She is a bigot who has substituted her personal bigotry for law.

There is no place for racists on the Supreme Court.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/25/4981992/affirmative-action-finds-brave.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/25/4981992/affirmative-action-finds-brave.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/25/4981992/affirmative-action-finds-brave.html#storylink=cpy

Goodness gracious Jerry Coyne is a moron

Jerry Coyne writes something on the Supreme Courts' Greece v Galloway decision that is almost too stupid to be worth commentary. Almost.

Coyne:

The most frightening thing on there, though, was this (my emphasis):

An opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, explained their refusal to join Part II-B of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. They argued that the Establishment Clause should not be seen as being applicable to the states. 

Do we need to remind Scalia, who is an “originalist” (i.e., one who adheres to what he sees as the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s writers), what the Establishment Clause is? It’s at the beginning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Under what interpretation is that not applicable to the states? Are Scalia and Thomas saying that although Congress can’t have make an established religion, or prohibit exercise of some religions, or prohibit freedom of the press, the states can?

That’s insane. I look forward to reading their opinions; this is going to be juicy.

:-/

A prime purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments of religion-- at the time of ratification, many states had official state churches. The Establishment Clause guaranteed that the federal government couldn't establish a national religion, which would deprive the individual states of their own state religions. Established state churches continued into the middle decades of the 19th century, and were perfectly constitutional, protected by the Establishment Clause from interference by the federal government. 

It wasn't until 1940, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Cantwell v. Connecticut, that the Establishment Clause was fully incorporated to the states, based on the 14th Amendment.

The Incorporation Doctrine is itself dubious. It is not stated explicitly in the 14th Amendment, and many legal scholars and Supreme Court justices (including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) have argued cogently that the Establishment Clause cannot be incorporated to the states, precisely because the Establishment Clause is an anti-incorporation doctrine. The Establishment Clause basically takes the federal government out of the state-religion-regulation game, and can't therefore be used as a basis for federal state-religion regulation. 

Coyne of course knows none of this. He poses as a public intellectual, even as a sage on Establishment Clause issues, but he is ignorant of the most rudimentary aspects of Establishment Clause history and jurisprudence.

It is a sorry state of affairs that this semi-literate anti-Christian bigot is taken seriously in our public discourse.