by

News/Politics 4-27-15

What’s interesting in the news today?

Open Thread

Here’s a few to start things off.

1. It appears that Hillary’s payola scheme violates the constitution.

From TheFederalist  “The Washington Post reported last week that the tax-exempt foundation run by Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary served as U.S. Secretary of State (it’s unclear how much foreign money the organization accepted while Hillary was a U.S. Senator). Super shady, right? It’s worse than that, though, becauseArticle I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution actually bans foreign payola for U.S. officials.

The constitutional ban on foreign cash payments to U.S. officials is known as the Emoluments Clause and originated from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the U.S. by paying off U.S. government officials. Here’s the text of the clause:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments. Let’s take a look at the specific language from the State Dept.:

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).”

______________________________________

2. Dissent will not be tolerated. 

From TheDailySignal  “An Oregon administrative law judge recommended today that the bakers who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding should be fined $135,000.

“[T]he forum concludes that $75,000 and $60,000, are appropriate awards to compensate [the same-sex couple] for the emotional suffering they experienced,” wrote Alan McCullough, administrative law judge for Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries in his proposed order.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa located in Gresham, Ore., say the fine is enough to potentially bankrupt their family of seven.

The dispute began in January 2013, when Aaron denied Rachel Cryer a wedding cake after learning there would be two brides in her wedding.

Aaron and his wife Melissa are both Christians and believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Rachel and her partner Laurel Bowman-Cryer, who are now married, filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries under the state’spublic accommodation law, which bans discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.”

______________________________________

3. The “safe space” movement is yet another attempt by liberals to attack the freedoms of those who dare disagree with them. 

From TheWeek  “One of the more contentious ideas to recently emerge from the culture war is that of “safe spaces.” We are said to be at risk of social dangers. Sometimes these dangers are labeled denialism (in which someone’s identity isn’t recognized) or triggering speech (speech that sets off traumatic responses in unwitting listeners). The way some students at elite colleges combat these social dangers is to create, or demand the creation of, safe spaces. And just as often, students demand that their entire campus become a safe space.

Hence the wrong kind of speech is re-labeled as violence. The space only becomes safe when certain ideas (and the people expositing them) are banished. We’re trying to build a supportive community, don’t you know?

Why worry about the exotic (and sometimes silly) life of a college campus? Well, it matters because future elites — who will set the norms and tone of our institutions of power — are coming of age in this intellectual stew. At top colleges we already see the nepotistic acceptance of incurious mediocrity, the shirking of citizenship’s duties, and a liberation from old constraints, all of which tell us about the future of our nation’s social and political life.

Here’s my prediction: Safe spaces will continue to spread across campuses. And from there, the colonization project will really begin in earnest. Public institutions, schools, and even the home. And colonization is the right word, because the logic of a “safe space” is entirely alien to traditional notions of liberty.

How can you even object? Are you pro-trauma? Pro-denialism? You think kids should have their identities denied and be traumatized in the home?”

Their stupidity is traumatizing me. I think their thin skin and cry baby whining is triggering it. 🙄

______________________________________

8 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-27-15”

  1. Just to get us all going, here’s a post from one of my FB friends (we go back to college days) today:
    ________________________________________

    Hilary for President: She’s worked for it. Massive international experience. Respected by every country except her own. Prez’s focus is that of a CEO…external to the company. She’s got that.

    Elizabeth for Vice President: VP’s is that of a CFO or COO…internal to the company. The VP also can be outspoken about home-based issues. And…she’s right.

    What an incredible opportunity. But…why won’t it work?

    Because the US is still a misogynistic pile of testosterone that just won’t allow women to rise to power and still believes men should dictate to women. How sick is that.

    _________________________________________

    AJ, that whole campus “safe place” story is crazy — I heard it last week and was speechless. Academia should be ashamed.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Interesting quote from Breitbart
    In their lawsuit, the two women claimed they felt “mentally raped,” as part of a list of 88 symptoms of emotional distress they experienced at being refused a cake.

    The long list of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

    The judge apparently found it unremarkable that “loss of appetite” and “impaired digestion” should lead to “weight gain.”

    Like

    Reply

  4. kbells, quite apart from the issue of whether two women can marry, people who aren’t old enough to deal with the reality that not everyone agrees with them, and that the world doesn’t actually revolve around them, aren’t old enough to marry. Perhaps the judge could have pointed that out.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. Donna, I don’t get out much, but who is this “Elizabeth” who is on a first-name basis with readers? The only one I can think of is Elizabeth Dole, and I have a hunch that’s not who she meant . . .

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment