Sunday, May 17, 2015


***Great response from the judge on atheists who attempt to ban "under God."

Some kids could really use a lesson on the Constitution. Take for instance an unidentified high school student who filed a suit last year against the Matawan-Aberdeen school district in New Jersey on the basis that hearing the Pledge of Allegiance in class violated his rights as an atheist.
Judge David F. Bauman, who dismissed the case in February but whose ruling was just published Monday, disagreed with this faulty assertion.
“Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of public schools in America,” he wrote.
But he did not stop there. He also pointed out how the phrase “under God,” which is what the student had a problem with, appears everywhere in America.
“As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787,” the judge noted.
Furthermore, even the New Jersey State Constitution references God, meaning that “the very constitution under which” the student sought “redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional,” a notion the judge described as “absurd.”
According to BizPac Review, The American Humanist Association, which had teamed up with the unidentified teen, was not too happy with the ruling.
One of their spokespeople claimed that having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance is “discriminatory” and makes atheists feel like “second-class citizens.”
However, Judge Bauman explained that students have “every right to skip the Pledge” if they so desire. What they do not have the right to do is stop other students from reciting it.

There are still some judges in this country with common sense. Thank God!

***What's the holdup? GOP has waited for two years for info on IRS correspondence with Dem Senators.  Wow, those shredders must really be working overtime.

Washington Republicans said this week that their requests to the IRS for correspondences between the agency and congressional Democrats remain unfulfilled after two years, raising questions about whether the Obama administration is trying to withhold information for a third-straight election cycle.
“Instead of holding the IRS accountable, Democrats are trying to cover-up their involvement in the IRS targeting scandal,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokeswoman Andrea Bozek said Friday.

I wish the Republicans would learn to play political hardball. No confirmations, no movement on anything until the Democrats comply with the law. They'll never do it, though. Too many eclair-spined establishment RINOs in power.

***Amtrak crash reignites infrastructure debate. Reference above - Democrats know how to play hardball. Unfortunately, they're also very adept and lies and deceit, and it works. They know this crash had absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure, but they exploited the tragedy to start debate on an issue which will result, if the Republicans cave again, in more spending that we can't afford. It's not like if we allocate the money it will be spent as intended. That's the problem - Democrats are great at bait and switch - get the money any way they can, then pay off their co-conspirators and line their re-election bank accounts and those of their supporters. They have no interest in the infrastructure.



Once to every man and nation
comes the moment to decide.
In the strife of truth with falsehood
for the good or evil side.
Some great cause, God's new Messiah
offering each the bloom or blight.
And the choice goes by forever
twixt that darkness and that light. 

from a Victorian hymn, name unknown

yo adrian

***Herein lies the problem: Low information voters are much more likely to vote for corrupt politicians. We've certainly seen that borne out.

Repeated studies have shown that politicians in mature democracies accused of corruption are typically not punished at the polls. Existing explanations focus on rational trade-offs by policy-minded voters and institutionally-driven constraints. I analyze another factor: distribution of electorate's political awareness. A common regression approach likely suffers from bias due to potential underlying selection mechanisms. My identification strategy rests on a simple framework which shows that this bias is invariably downward, irrespective of the direction of the hypothesized effect. Less-informed voters are found to be significantly more likely to vote for incumbents accused of corruption relative to clean incumbents than their well-informed counterparts. An across-the-board increase in political awareness would systematically reduce the support for malfeasant incumbents. Results are not sensitive to omission of potential confounds, endogeneity of voter awareness to scandal occurrence, alternative measurement of incumbent support and voter information, variation in the nature of incumbent corruption, and parametric modeling assumptions.

Pretty sad.

funny animals (13)


Ecclesiastes 9:10King James Version (KJV)

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

***Have a great day!

No comments:

Post a Comment