Michelle caves in to student pressure, cancels speech

By RedFlag

article-0-11FACF4A000005DC-580_634x671.jpg

Michelle Obama is rearranging plans for a speech before graduating high school seniors in Topeka, Kan., in the face of protests that her appearance at a combined graduation ceremony for five schools would limit seating for families and friends.

She had accepted the district’s invitation to speak May 17 at the combined ceremony to mark that day’s 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, outlawing school segregation. The case originated in Topeka.

via ABC News…

Via: Michelle caves in to student pressure, cancels speech

    

Sotomayor’s demeaning views on race

By RedFlag

(by Mike Gonzalez, NY Post) — Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didn’t sit well with the court’s self-described “Wise Latina,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her 58-page-long dissent made clear that she’ll be the last line of defense for affirmative-action policies at the highest court in the land.

But a look at the dissent — parts of which Sotomayor dramatically read aloud from the bench — as well as her own history, makes clear that the lady doth protest too much. Immigrants and their children simply have no claim on affirmative action — if anyone does. To the contrary, these policies hurt their intended beneficiaries.

The court didn’t rule on the merits of affirmative action, but simply on whether voters can opt to ban its use in public universities. Sotomayor tried to do several things as she fought a rear-guard battle.

She sought, for one, to equate affirmative action with voting rights, which didn’t fly. More interestingly, she also vainly tried to read this policy into the Constitution, the better to save it from future challenges.

The Constitution, she wrote, “guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals — here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.”

In other words, one of the highest Hispanics in the land argues that, without preference policies, minorities can’t hope to reach a proportionate participation in universities.

Can you imagine what reading this opinion would do to a young Puerto Rican or Mexican-American girl full of hopes about her own abilities? As Linda Chavez, the highest woman in President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet, once put it, “Ultimately, entitlements based on their status as ‘victims’ rob Hispanics of real power.”

It’s heartening that by a 6-2 majority, the high court didn’t let such nonsense go unchallenged by the voters.

Keep reading…

Via: Sotomayor’s demeaning views on race

    

“Chilling” Powers to Restrict the First Amendment Now Underway: ‘Hate Crime Reporting Act’ a “Dangerous” Threat to Free Speech

By RedFlag

(by Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com) — Critics of the newly proposed ‘Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014′ have slammed the bill as a “dangerous” threat to free speech, warning that the legislation would hand an obscure federal agency “chilling” powers to restrict the First Amendment.

Introduced earlier this week by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), the ‘Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014′ (S.2219), along with its companion bill in the House, H.R. 3878, would task the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with filing reports on Internet, radio and television content that seeks “to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate”.

According to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), chief sponsor of the House version, the bill will target “hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection”. Apparently Jeffries is unaware of the fact that the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech and that free speech cannot be defined by arbitrary ‘zones’ decided on by politicians.

A Boston Herald editorial warns that the bill will encourage the federal agency to, “begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening,” labeling the initiative a “frankly chilling proposition”.

“Prosecutors already have the authority to prosecute threats. And for the life of us we can’t fathom any further government limit on Internet postings or talk radio callers that could be structured to protect an American’s right to free expression,” states the editorial.

The legislation arrives four months after Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s comments about homosexuality, which were labeled “hate speech” by many on the left and sparked a national debate, ending in a victory for the First Amendment after Robertson’s suspension was lifted by TV network A&E.

Meanwhile, Civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate told the Herald, “This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” adding, “It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”

Writer Pamela Geller goes even further, asserting that if passed the legislation “will finish the United States” and introduce de-facto “Islamic blasphemy laws” that will make criticizing Islam a hate crime.

One conservative website also notes how the bill was welcomed by Alex Nogales, President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, prompting concerns that the legislation could lead to harsh criticism of illegal immigration also being categorized as a “hate crime”.

Via: “Chilling” Powers to Restrict the First Amendment Now Underway: ‘Hate Crime Reporting Act’ a “Dangerous” Threat to Free Speech

    

53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People

By RedFlag

washington2.jpg

(Rasmussen Reports) — Voters continue to believe Democrats have more of a plan for the future than Republicans do, but most again say neither party represents the public.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is fair to say that neither party in Congress is the party of the American people. That’s up six points from 47%

Via: 53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People