Monday, June 30, 2014

NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust | NewsBusters

NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust

By Tom Blumer | June 30, 2014 | 09:13

An undated but clearly recent page at the National Wildlife Federation breathlessly warns readers, in a section entitled "Threats from Global Warming," that "Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat." A Thursday Huffington Post Canada Business entry observed that "the (Great Lakes) basin has experienced the longest extended period of lower water levels since the U.S. and Canada began tracking levels in 1918." Of course, it's because of "climate change."
Friday, Julie Bosman at the New York Times reported (HT Powerline) that "The International Joint Commission, a group with members from the United States and Canada that advises on water resources, completed a five-year study in April 2013 concluding that water levels in the lakes were likely to drop even farther, in part because of the lack of precipitation in recent years brought on by climate change." But the reason Bosman was on the story is because — fortunately for area residents, but unfortunately for "startled" global warming adherents claiming to be "scientists" — Great Lakes sea levels are rising again (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Creeping Up on Unsuspecting Shores: The Great Lakes, in a Welcome Turnaround
... after reaching historic lows in 2013, water levels in the Great Lakes are now abruptly on the rise, a development that has startled scientists and thrilled just about everybody with a stake in the waterfront, including owners of beach houses, retailers in tourist areas and dockmasters who run marinas on the lakeshore.
Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior are at least a foot higher than they were a year ago, and are expected to rise three more inches over the next month. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are seven to nine inches higher than a year ago.
... Scientists say the reversal of fortunes for the lakes is partly a result of the most bone-chilling winter in memory for many Midwesterners. The thick and long-lasting ice cover on the lakes kept the water colder and slowed evaporation. Heavy snowfall and a rainy spring allowed the lakes to make even more gains.
“We’ve had a rebound that we haven’t seen in many, many years,” said Gene Clark, a coastal engineer with the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute in Superior, Wis. “We’ve been historically below average, and now we are finally back to above-average water levels. At this time last year, I was talking to Wisconsin state legislators about what was happening, why the levels were so low and what could the State of Wisconsin do about it. It was very much a crisis.”

Actually, Mr. Clark, what has occurred demonstrates that it wasn't a crisis. It was part of natural cycles over which man has no meaningful influence or control.
One Powerline commenter noted something consistent with my memories of the late 1960s, namely that people at the time were also worried about low lake levels:

I live not far from Lake Huron, and I recall that water levels the last decade or so have been the lowest since the 1960s. Climate change is the all-purpose whipping boy, but that doesn't explain why they were so low in the 60s. Cyclical issues seem to be the easier answer, but you don't get as much grant money for cyclical issues.

Bingo.
Deliberately ignoring history, or changing it to fit the agenda, has been standard operating procedure for the global warming-climate change-climate disruption proponents for decades. President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency, and leftist politicians ridicule as "deniers" those who oppose their statist agenda by presenting pesky things known as facts, while the press generally cheers them on.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

[Not that Politifact doesn't have it's biases]

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

President Barack Obama received a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court last week for his attempt to make appointments when Congress was still technically in session.
The 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning came just as Speaker John Boehner announced plans to sue Obama for executive overreach.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who defended Boehner’s lawsuit, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was emblematic of Obama’s term. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."
Has Obama really had such a tough time with the high court? We decided to review the record.
Goodlatte isn’t the only person to make this argument. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a similar claim in a press release last week and it was also the subject of a column in the National Review, a conservative news website.
A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.
Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.
"That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.
But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.
Why?
For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.
Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.
Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.
But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.
Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.
Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."
Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.
This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.
"The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress," Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.
Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.
Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.
Another case on the Goodlatte’s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.
The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It’s complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn’t arrest him under federal extortion laws.
In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.
"This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."
"It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 | National Review Online

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012

By John Fund

June 26, 2014 11:50 AM

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).
The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.
So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”
Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.
While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
Justice argued that the police should be able to attach a GPS device to your car without a search warrant or even any reason to believe you committed a crime. Fortunately for those who fear the ever-growing power of the federal government, particularly its abuse of new technology, all nine justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from attaching a GPS to your car without getting a warrant.
Even Justice Sotomayor, President Obama’s own nominee to the Court, agreed that the government had invaded “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.” But Eric Holder wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights and believed that his agents should be able to track all of your movements in public by attaching a GPS device to your car without permission from a judge. This is a frightening view of government power enhanced by new surveillance technology that would have directly threatened our liberty. When will liberals wake up to the fact that this administration takes positions on executive power that would make Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, his attorney general, blush?
— John Fund is co-author, with Hans von Spakovsky, of a new book Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

Want To Get Obama Out Of Office? Don't Impeach; Do This Instead!

Want To Get Obama Out Of Office? Don’t Impeach; Do This Instead!

We can either hope, or we can take direct action!

Allan Erickson — June 30, 2014

This president and his comrades long ago forfeited the right to govern because they have frequently violated the trust of the American people–and the law. If polling data is accurate, the clear majority of people have no confidence in this regime, knowing that the longer it remains in power, the more damage will be done–some of it irreparable.

People talk endlessly about impeachment. So long as the Senate is Democrat-controlled, and the media is in Obama’s pocket, it is not going to happen–and besides, time is running out. Others suggest charges of treason, but there is no political courage in Washington to file charges and then prosecute.
Consequently, we can either hope for the best in the next two election cycles, during which time the world economy may collapse and Jihad might pound us into a deeper hole; or we can take direct action.
It is time for The People to show this government that we are in charge; that in America, government acts according to our consent, not against our will. I suggest We the People call a General Strike, one involving the following measures and demands:

Tax revolt: refuse to pay income taxes until such time as the following steps are taken to correct course, A-Z
1. Repeal ObamaCare
2. Secure the border
3. Enforce current immigration laws to the fullest; reform the system without granting amnesty
4. Immediately deport all individuals who have a criminal record of any kind
5. Cut federal spending 20% across the board immediately, and then prioritize spending according to national polls–which will most likely demand inclusion of healthcare for Veterans. Top priorities for most Americans today include jobs, the economy, corrupt politicians, education, government spending, debt, and taxes.
6. Flat tax: 20% for the upper income brackets (more than $300,000 gross per year), 15% for the middle class (annual gross income between $70,000 and $300,000), 8% for the lower class ($30,000 to $70,000), no tax for those below $30,000 per year. Abolish the rest of the income tax code. Abolish the death tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, and set corporate tax rates at 15% federal, 8% state, 2% local.
7. Provide tax breaks to new businesses, especially if they hire veterans.
8. Return defense spending to what it was in 2007 as a percentage of the overall federal budget
9. Put our missiles back in Poland and reaffirm our total commitment to Israel
10. Affirm our Christian Founding by introducing resolutions to each state legislature and prohibit any and all harassment of Christians, canceling all efforts to violate conscience with regard to moral issues–particularly relating to same sex marriage and abortion. No further prosecutions of Christians for refusing to participate in activities associated with objectionable behaviors.
11. Give the military full authority to come up with a strategy to destroy ISIS, and turn them loose to execute that strategy. Obviously, the War on Terror is too much for some civilian President alone. The military and intelligence communities should come up with an overall strategy to present to the Congress and the President for approval, installation, and action.
12. Roll back every EPA regulation promulgated by that agency during the last six years
13. Cancel Common Core and dismantle the Dept. of Education, returning education to localities.
14. Push all authority with regard to abortion and same sex marriage down to the state level, insisting the judiciary stop trying to legislate and allowing the will of the people to prevail as expressed in elections on propositions placed on the ballot by the people. Only states can decide on the matter of public funding of abortion.
15. Term limits in Congress: six terms maximum for Representatives, two terms maximum for Senators.
16. Pass a law that requires an audit of the Federal Reserve System.
17. Pass a law that requires all government officials to abide by any law they pass.
18. Abolish the IRS. Reform DOJ. Suspend all pending gun control legislation.
19. Abolish the Energy Department.
20. Reform regulations allowing for radical energy development, allowing the market to dictate where and how development occurs rather than arbitrarily giving preference to ‘green’ energy.
21. Abolish affirmative action and all hate crimes legislation.
22. Affirm the original intent of the Constitution: insist the federal government get back in line with the original definitions of federal authority and abide the limitations placed on the central government as defined. Return to the original method of selection Senators— Article I, section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
23. Repair our relationships with our allies; remind enemies that America is back.
24. Reject Sharia as a matter of federal law and prohibit its influence in our legal system.
25. Remove all Jihadists from government jobs and deport all of them.
26. Each state will have the right to enact and enforce voter identification rules and regulations.
If the tax revolt does not achieve each of these goals within one year, the following will occur to ‘encourage’ our leaders and representatives to earn our consent:
1. Boycott the public schools
2. Refuse to sign up for, or fund, ObamaCare: refuse to pay any penalties or taxes associated
3. Refuse to show up for jury duty
4. Stop quarterly business tax payments
5. Stop work one day per week
6. Urge garbage workers in D.C. to stop collecting
7. Various acts of civil disobedience, non-violent of course

If The People act in solidarity, asserting their rights and their will, legally and non-violently applying consistent pressure to send the clear message we expect results, then perhaps we’ll finally start the restoration process.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/want-get-obama-office-dont-impeach-instead/#KmfruhfEzv1ShYHe.99

Leaked Lib Megadonor Doc: 'Fundamentally Change Our Current Political System' | Media Research Center

Leaked Lib Megadonor Doc: 'Fundamentally Change Our Current Political System'

62-page briefing book details $374 million in spending during midterm election cycle.

Published: 6/25/2014 5:27 PM ET

By Mike Ciandella

Staff Writer/Analyst for the Business and Media Institute

According to a recently published briefing book "obtained by Politico" by the liberal megadonor group Democracy Alliance, "progressives' long term success hinges on our ability to fundamentally change our current political system - including large questions about who can vote, the role money should play in politics, and what our courts look like."
The briefing, a report card of 2013's challenges and accomplishments for the organization, said that the George Soros founded and funded Democracy Alliance is "more than capable of turning back the latest threats from the Right." According to Politico, the briefing book was provided to Democracy Alliance donors "ahead of April's annual spring meeting."
The Democracy Alliance is a membership group that directs funding to a wide variety of liberal causes. It was created to consolidate the efforts of wealthy liberal donors such as George Soros, Tom Steyer and Robert Mckay.
The report paid "particular attention" to "the successful examples of alignment that have developed over the last three years and highlight additional opportunities that could further advance our collective visions of a stronger democracy and more progressive America."
The document highlighted 21 organizations the Alliance viewed as success stories. These "successes" included items like:

"Met goal to coordinate campaigns to block conservatives agendas" (America Votes),
"Met goal to promote progressive vision of the law" (American Constitution Society),
"Met goal to advance progressive state policies" (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
Another highlighted group, Progressive Majority, boasted that it helped "elect 60 progressives and flip six local governments" in 2013 alone.

Towards the end of the document is a list of 172 liberal groups that the Democracy Alliance encouraged its supporters to donate to, entitled "Progressive Infrastructure Map Spring 2014." A footnote on this list states that "[O]ver the last nine years, many of the organizations previously recommended for support by the Democracy Alliance have played instrumental roles in building a stronger, more integrated progressive infrastructure." These 172 groups cover a wide range of left-wing issues such as gun control, LGBT activism, pro-choice activism and climate change alarmism.
Each of the 21 highlighted organization profiles included a rating of how diverse the organization was when it came to race, gender, and LGBTQ staff. According to the description of the briefing, "a well-balanced set of recommendations and Partner support for organizations that reflect diversity will contribute to our vision of a more progressive America."
Some of these groups have far-reaching influence, including America Votes which claims to coordinate "the engagement and issue advocacy of its more than 400 state and national partners."
The media are quick to criticize right wing donors, particularly Charles and David Koch, but they rarely report on the vast network of liberal donors. The Democracy Alliance even referenced the Koch brothers, with no apparent hint at irony. After talking about the "pronounced financial advantage" of conservatives, the briefing book assured liberals that "[w]hat progressives have is a strong infrastructure - built up and supported by Democracy Alliance (DA) Partners and other allied funders - that is innovative, collaborative, and deeply invested in mobilizing the key constituencies that will constitute the new American majority."
Groups profiled by the Democracy Alliance, with funding amounts. The number of Democracy Alliance partners supporting each organization is in parentheses.

America Votes: $3.16 million (24 partners supporting)
American Constitution Society $1.19 million (18 partners supporting)
Black Civic Engagement Fund: $900.000 (3 partners supporting)
Brennan Center for Justice: $2.6 million (32 partners supporting)
Catalist, LLC: $1.18 million (9 partners supporting)
Center for American Progress: $3.3 million (26 partners supporting)
Center for Community Change: $2.15 million (17 partners supporting)
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: $1.91 million (27 partners supporting)
Common Purpose Project: $130,000 (5 partners supporting)
Fund for the Republic: $1.39 million (14 partners supporting)
Latino Engagement Fund: $1.89 million (15 partners supporting)
Media Matters for America: $2.7 million (33 partners supporting)
New Media Ventures: $330,000 (14 partners supporting)
New Organizing Institute: $440,000 (13 partners supporting)
Organizing for Action: $650,000 (10 partners supporting)
Progressive Majority: $600,000 (13 partners supporting)
ProgressNow: $1.8 million (31 partners supporting)
State Engagement Initiative: (created through a partnership with the Committee on States)
State Voices: $1.44 million (20 partners supporting)
Youth Engagement Fund $240,000 (14 partners supported)

The Women's Equality Center was also highlighted, although it did not receive money during 2013, with the addendum that "[g]oing forward, DA staff will work with WEC to set annual goals and report back to Partners on its performance and impact."

— Mike Ciandella is Staff Writer/Analyst for the Business and Media Institute at the Media Research Center. Follow Mike Ciandella on Twitter.

Sheriff Arpaio Suggests Calling In Troops To The Border To 'Clean Up This Mess'

Published June 30, 2014

Fox News Latino

Getty Images

The border crisis is such, says Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that the government should consider taking the matter to the Department of Defense.
In a radio interview Sunday morning,

Arpaio said the flood of undocumented immigrants crossing the border needs to be stopped with both Mexican and U.S. troops working together to bring the situation under control and, he said, “clean up this mess.”
“If we are worried about the danger, then I would send the military across the border, work with their military bilaterally and get the job done,” he said.
“Of course, you have to get the Mexican president to OK it,” he added. “I would just go in there and have a few drinks with him and get the job done.”
The Obama administration estimates that between October 2013 and September 2014 it will have caught 90,000 children trying to illegally cross the Mexican border without their parents. Last year, the U.S. returned fewer than 2,000 children to their native countries.
Arpaio, 82, spoke of his years of experience as a regional director in Mexico City, Central, South America. “I would go back to what I did in Mexico. My agents carried guns and we worked right along with the Mexican authorities locking up dope peddlers,” he said on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.

He went on: “Why do they have to go to court? The minute you cross the border put them on an airplane and send them back.”
The controversial sheriff, who has been in office since 1993, was investigated recently for allegedly mischaracterizing and trivializing a judge's findings in a racial-profiling decision issued last year against the police agency,
Ten months ago, the judge concluded Arpaio's office had systematically racially profiled Latinos in its immigration and regular traffic patrols and unreasonably prolonged the detentions of people during traffic stops. Arpaio has vigorously denied the racial-profiling allegations and has appealed the ruling.
The judge has required Arpaio's office to install video cameras in hundreds of the agency's patrol vehicles, set up a seven-person team of sheriff's employees to help implement the judge's orders and carry out additional training to ensure officers aren't making unconstitutional arrests.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded

ATOMIKTIGER: 7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' – as in cosmetic appearance – is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.

2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity – the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.

3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.

4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).

5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.

6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.

7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition – either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.

BONUS: We Need More Laws:

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

Bill Ayers' Parents Put a "Foreigner" Named Barack Obama Through Harvard

Bill Ayers’ Parents Put a “Foreigner” Named Barack Obama Through Harvard

Posted on June 29, 2014 by Dean Garrison

Barack Obama’s political career was launched at a fundraiser held at Bill Ayers home. Yet, through the course of the last 6 years, Barack Obama has acted like Bill Ayers is nothing but a casual acquaintance.
It is understandable that Barack Obama would try to hide any ties to the infamous co-founder of the Weather Underground. Bill Ayers is bad news. However, I think most of America realizes that Bill Ayers is much more central to the Obama story than we have been told.
Obama supporters tend to think that the Ayers’ connection is either inconsequential or simply a thing of the past.
His detractors think this relationship is vital to who Obama is and to exposing his real goals for America. Many believe that Bill Ayers was, and possibly still is, Barack Obama’s mentor.
Before I get into the Ayers’ family connection, I want to play a short video interview of Larry Grathwohl. Larry was an “undercover” member of the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was not simply a second-rate terrorist organization that set off a few bombs. The stated goal of the leadership was to take over America and subsequently kill 25 million people:

Scary stuff, isn’t it?
It is also important to note that Bill Ayers’ father, Tom, was a very wealthy and well-connected man.

Thomas G. Ayers (February 16, 1915, Detroit, Michigan – June 8, 2007, Chicago, Illinois) was president (1964–1980), CEO and chairman (1973–1980) of Commonwealth Edison.^[1]

Ayers served as chairman of the Board of Trustees of Northwestern University, the Erikson Institute, the Bank Street College of Education in New York City, the Chicago Symphony, the Chicago Community Trust, the Chicago Urban League, the Community Renewal Society, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, Chicago United, the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, and Dearborn Park Corp.,^[1] and served as vice president of the Chicago Board of Education.^[2]

Ayers also served on the board of directors of Sears, G.D. Searle, Chicago Pacific Corp., Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, General Dynamics Corp. of St. Louis, First National Bank of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs, and the Tribune Co.^[1]

Source: Wikipedia

I think it would be safe to say that Thomas Ayers was one of those men who got what he wanted in life.

In 2012 investigative reporter Jerome Corsi uncovered a witness named Allen Hulton who was the Ayers’ family mailman. He spoke of many conversations with Mary Ayers, one with Thomas and claims to have met a young Barack Obama.

In the below video you will hear talk of the Ayers’ family supporting a young foreign student which is presumably Barack Obama. Hulton also claims to have met Obama outside of the Ayers’ home. In that conversation Barack Obama confidently told Hulton that he was going to be president.

If this account from Hulton is to be trusted, not only did Obama know Ayers’ and his family well, he was practically Bill’s brother. Either way, this could be just one of the reasons that Obama will never unseal his college records.

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 AM ET

ARIANE DE VOGUE

Ariane de Vogue More from Ariane »

PHOTO: Hobby Lobby supporters react to the U.S. Supreme Court decision June 30, 2014 in Washington, DC.

SCOTUS Rules Against Obamacare's Contraceptive Mandate

Auto Start: On | Off

In a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women’s right’s groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.

In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.

The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.

Here's what you need to know about the decision:

What did the court rule?

The court rejected the government’s claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Alito wrote.

Alito says the court has “little trouble” concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.”

What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. “

What did Ginsburg's dissent say?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :”Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of “Me, too” questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”

Ginsburg wrote , “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”

She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.

What did Alito say about freedom of religion?

Alito: “The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

Does the law apply to corporations?

Alito: “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies.”

What are liberals and allied groups saying?

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or not they’ve paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that has been made over the last century.”

What are conservatives and allied groups saying?

“This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby Lobby: “The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even before the founding of this country.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: “Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the courts alone to defend our religious liberty”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws, and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: “I am extremely encouraged by today’s Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.

Remind me, what happened during oral arguments?

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the companies told the Justices in March that for-profit corporations—with sincerely held religious beliefs—should not have to provide coverage for four FDA approved contraceptives. The Green Family, who are evangelical Christians and the Hahns, who are Mennonites, object to four of the drugs and devices because they say they have the potential to destroy an embryo.

Clement argued the law substantially burdens his clients and that the government—which has exempted others from the law—had no compelling justification to force Hobby Lobby and other closely held businesses to provide the coverage.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at oral arguments that the challengers to the law were asking for a radical departure from precedent . In briefs he said, “The Supreme Court has never granted a religious accommodation to a secular business that comes at the expense of its employees.”

He argued that the corporations’ claimed burden is “too attenuated” because it is the plan participants who decide which services to use in consultation with their doctors.” Verrilli argued that the mandate is a part of a comprehensive insurance scheme and serves the government’s interest in public health and gender equality.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Greenpeace exec Pascal Husting commutes 800 km by plane

Emily Gosden, The Telegraph | June 24, 2014 | Last Updated: Jun 24 10:36 AM ET

Greenpeace FrancePascal Husting in 2007

One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 400 kilometres each way to work by plane, the environmental group has admitted.
Pascal Husting, the international program director at Greenpeace International, said he began “commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam” when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month.
The flights, costing about $365 return, are paid by Greenpeace, even though it campaigns to cut air travel, arguing that the growth in flying “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change.”
One volunteer described the arrangement as “almost unbelievable.” Another said they would cancel their direct debit donation following a series of disclosures about financial mismanagement in documents leaked to The Guardian newspaper.

A 2007 interview Pascal Husting by Greenpeace France Greenpeace was forced to apologize for a “serious error of judgment” last week, after it emerged that it had lost $5.5-million of public donations when a member of staff tried unauthorized currency dealing. Each round trip Mr. Husting makes would generate 142 kg of carbon dioxide emissions, according to airline KLM — a carbon footprint equivalent over two years to consuming 17 barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Husting said that while he would “rather not take” the journey, it would be “a twelve-hour round trip by train.”
“I spend half my life on Skype and video conference calls,” he said. “But as a senior manager, the people who work in my team sometimes need to meet me in the flesh.”

JOSE JORDAN/AFP/Getty ImagesCrew members work on board environmental NGO Greenpeace's ship Rainbow Warrior docked in Valencia port on June 8.

He said that from September he would be making the trip only once a month and by train, because the restructuring of his team would be coming to an end “and my kids will be a little older.” John Saven, the head of Greenpeace in the U.K., wrote in his blog: “As for Pascal’s air travel. Well it’s a really tough one. Was it the right decision to allow him to use air travel to try to balance his job with the needs of his family for a while?
“For me, it feels like it gets to the heart of a really big question. What kind of compromises do you make in your efforts to try to make the world a better place?

So disappointed. Hardly had two pennies to rub together but have supported [Greenpeace] for 35+ years. Cancelling [direct debit] for while

“Honesty and integrity to the values that are at the heart of the good you’re trying to do in the world cannot be allowed to slip away. For what it’s worth, I don’t think we’ve crossed that line.”
Richard Lancaster, who said he had been involved with Greenpeace since the 1980s, responded: “I volunteer with Greenpeace but work in the commercial world and if I took a job in another country I’d expect to move to where the job is and if I couldn’t for family reasons I wouldn’t take the job — so I find Pascal’s travel arrangements almost unbelievable.” Another supporter wrote: “So disappointed. Hardly had two pennies to rub together but have supported [Greenpeace] for 35+ years. Cancelling [direct debit] for while.”
Greenpeace has campaigned to curb air travel and end “needless” domestic flights. In a briefing on “the problem with aviation,” the group said: “In terms of damage to the climate, flying is 10 times worse than taking the train.”

Title lX: How a Good Law Went Terribly Wrong

Christina Hoff Sommers

June 23, 2014

The landmark legislation was supposed to bring equality, instead it devastated mens' sports on campus

A weary wrestling coach once lamented that his sport had survived the Fall of Rome, only to be vanquished by Title IX. How did an honorable equity law turn into a scorched-earth campaign against men’s sports? This week is the 42^nd anniversary of this famous piece of federal legislation so it’s an ideal time to consider what went wrong and how to set it right.
Title IX was signed into law by President Nixon on June 23, 1972. In 37 momentous words, it outlawed gender discrimination in all publicly supported educational programs. Before its passage, many leading universities did not accept women and law schools and medical schools often used quotas to limit female enrollment. As for sports, female student athletes were rare — and received precious little support from college athletic programs. The logic behind Title IX is the same as that behind all great civil rights legislation: In our democracy, the government may not play favorites among races or religions or between the sexes. We are all equal before the law — including students in colleges and universities receiving public funds.
Title IX applies to all areas of education but is best known for its influence on sports. Women’s athletics have flourished in recent decades, and Title IX deserves some of the cheers. But something went wrong in the law’s implementation. The original law was about equality of opportunity and indeed forbade quotas or reverse discrimination schemes. But over the years, government officials, college administrators and jurists — spurred on by groups like the National Women’s Law Center and the Women’s Sports Foundation — transformed a fair-minded equity law into just such a quota-driven regime, with destructive results.
Women’s groups strongly object to the “q” word. “Title IX does not in any way require quotas,” says the National Women’s Law Center. “It simply requires that schools allocate participation opportunities non-discriminatorily.” That can mean many things, but in the hands of bureaucrats and advocates, this diffuse requirement somehow came to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60% female, then 60% of the athletes should be female — even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college.
Title IX defenders will tell you that there are several ways that schools can satisfy the non-discrimination standard other than proportional representation. That is true on paper but false in practice. The regulations are murky and ever-changing, leaving most schools to scramble to the only safe harbor: Proportionality.
Schools have cut back on male teams and created new women’s teams, not because of demand but because they fear federal investigations. Since football is a money-generating male sport with large rosters, Title IX quotas have all but decimated smaller less lucrative sports such as men’s swimming, diving, gymnastics and wrestling. More than 450 wrestling teams vanished since 1972, with only 328 remaining.
Then why not say that men’s sports were a casualty of football rather than Title IX? Because women’s groups have consistently rejected reasonable solutions to the football challenge. College football is qualitatively different from sports like diving, rowing and tennis. It is a mass spectacle, loved by millions of students, and integral to the identity and history of colleges and universities everywhere. It requires a large number of players and has no female counterpart. So why not just take it out of the Title IX mix? That one concession would have saved hundreds of small male teams. But no such concession was offered. Football is not destroying men’s teams; intransigent women’s groups and their “proportionality gap” bear most of the blame.
Look what happened at Howard University in Washington, D.C.: The school’s student body is 67% female, but women constitute only 43% of its athletic program. In 2007, the Women’s Sports Foundation, a powerful Title IX advocacy group, gave Howard an “F” grade because of its 24% “proportionality gap.” Howard had already cut men’s wrestling and baseball and added women’s bowling, but that did little to narrow the gap. Unless it cuts almost half of its current male athletes, Howard will remain under a Title IX cloud and legally vulnerable. The school’s former wrestling coach, Wade Hughes, summed up the problem this way: “The impact of Title IX’s proportionality standard has been disastrous because … far more males than females are seeking to take part in athletics.”
But the Women’s Sports Foundation disagrees. Girls are every bit as interested in sports as boys. According to its Title IX Myths and Facts, “Given equal athletic opportunities, women will rush to fill them; the remaining discrepancies in sports participation rates are the result of continuing discrimination in access to those opportunities.” And many well-meaning judges and government officials have agreed with them.
But there’s overwhelming evidence that women, taken as a group, are less interested than men in competitive sports. In 2012, a group of psychologists analyzed men’s and women’s propensities by looking at how many of them pursue team sports in their leisure time. Intramural sports are recreational games that college students can play just for the love of the sport. The researchers found that only 26% of intramural participants are women. They also studied recreational activity in 41 public parks in four different states. Lots of women were exercising, but only 10% of those playing competitive team sports were women. A 2013 ESPN report on youth sports found that 34% of girls in grades 3-12 say sports is a big part of who they are; for boys the figure is 61%.
No matter how much the Title IX activists and government officials want to pretend otherwise, the sexes are different. Overall, women care far less about athletics, both as participants and spectators. Sports Illustrated for Women, first published in 2000, was marketed to females between the ages of 18 and 34 with a “passion for sports.” The magazine lasted less than two years. The Women’s United Soccer Association and the American Basketball League were supposed to appeal to this same passionate demographic: Both folded after a few seasons. There is no call for magazines such as Vogue, Allure and Cosmopolitan, or websites like Jezebel, to include stories about draft picks, photographs of awesome plays and up-to-date information about fantasy teams and brackets.
Meanwhile, men by the legion (and a small percentage of women) support a vast network of sports magazines, websites, radio shows and fantasy teams. More than half of young men are sports-obsessives, and many would give their right arm to play competitive sports in high school or college — or even to sit on a bench all season with only a remote chance of playing.
“Build it and they will come,” says the National Women’s Law Center. But they don’t come. At least not many. So colleges are going to absurd lengths to achieve gender balance. It is not an easy task when women now far outnumber men on many campuses—thereby raising the proportionality hurdle—yet far fewer of them aspire to play varsity sports. Many schools solve the problem by axing men’s teams or limiting their rosters. Padding the women’s numbers is another common maneuver. As a 2011 story in The New York Times reported, nearly half of the fencers on Cornell’s women’s fencing team were men. Because of some loophole, male practice players counted as women. And, according to the Times, players don’t actually have to play to be counted as members, so at many schools dozens of girls are technically on teams — but never play. Some —like several women that were on the University of South Florida’s cross-country roster — didn’t even know they were listed.
Title-niners treat women’s underrepresentation in sports as an injustice that must be aggressively targeted. But areas where men fall behind raise little concern. They cannot have it both ways. If Howard University’s 24%sports gap (favoring males) warrants federal intervention, then its far more serious 34% attendance gap (favoring females) should warrant a Congressional investigation.
Instead of more investigations, restrictions, closed opportunities, bean counting, number fudging and gender politics, we should follow the advice of the novelist (and former wrestler) John Irving: “Keep Title IX: eliminate proportionality.” I know of no better way to celebrate this intrinsically good law on its 42^nd anniversary.

Confessions of a Colorado Conservative

Monday, June 30, 2014

NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust | NewsBusters

NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 | National Review Online

Want To Get Obama Out Of Office? Don't Impeach; Do This Instead!

Want To Get Obama Out Of Office? Don’t Impeach; Do This Instead!

We can either hope, or we can take direct action!

Leaked Lib Megadonor Doc: 'Fundamentally Change Our Current Political System' | Media Research Center

Leaked Lib Megadonor Doc: 'Fundamentally Change Our Current Political System'

Sheriff Arpaio Suggests Calling In Troops To The Border To 'Clean Up This Mess'

Sheriff Arpaio Suggests Calling In Troops To The Border To 'Clean Up This Mess'

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact

ATOMIKTIGER: 7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

Bill Ayers' Parents Put a "Foreigner" Named Barack Obama Through Harvard

Bill Ayers’ Parents Put a “Foreigner” Named Barack Obama Through Harvard

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Greenpeace exec Pascal Husting commutes 800 km by plane

Greenpeace exec Pascal Husting commutes 800 km by plane

Title lX: How a Good Law Went Terribly Wrong

Title lX: How a Good Law Went Terribly Wrong

The landmark legislation was supposed to bring equality, instead it devastated mens' sports on campus

AddToAny

My Blog List

Search This Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me