Monthly Archives: April 2015

Conservative Colleges

“In the future, we obviously in the conservative movement have to do much bigger things. We have to start taking over universities,” said Mr. Mike Adams, who also is a columnist at Townhall.com. “When you hear about a liberal cesspool like Sweet Briar College [in Virginia] going broke—conservatives need to buy them. We need our own universities because the fact of the matter is we’re battling against extinction.” Valerie Richardson

Conservatives say court a harsh first step in academic bias battle

Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, March 30, 2015, p. 13

texas-am-universityTeresa Wagner recently notched a victory at the US. Supreme Court, but she can be for­given if she doesn’t exactly feel like a winner.

Her lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law, in which she accuses the school of denying her a promotion over her conservative beliefs, has dragged on for six years. The case has taken a toll on her family and her finances, and she is running out of money to pay her legal bills.

Ms. Wagner is still working at the uni­versity although no longer as a part-time legal writing instructor. In November, she was reassigned to the library after she told university officials that she found a supervi­sor nunmaging through her backpack.

“She’s working in a stack of books in the main library basically, with no interaction with people at all,” said her attorney, Stephen Fieweger.

The Supreme Court’s March 9 refusal to hear the university’s appeal ensures Ms. Wagner a new trial after the first one, in 2012, ended in a hung jury. Her chances look good, given that jurors from the first trial told The Des Moines Register that they agreed she faced political discrimination but were uncomfortable finding a former dean personally responsible.

Still, even if Ms. Wagner prevails at trial and conservatives win the battle, there is little doubt they are losing the war. Those in the trenches say the assault on conservative ideas in higher education continues despite high-profile legal victories by academics over viewpoint bias. Continue reading

Preferring Islam

B1-BRUC-Crescent-Fl_c0-1-2000-1166_s561x327“Over the years it’s been disturbing to see an increased effort by the federal government to punish and marginalize Christianity. After all, we know the separation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from establishing an official state religion; it’s not about eliminating faith from the public square. And yet if you were to look at federal actions since Barack Obama became president, there is a certain trend of promoting and embracing one religion (Islam) while punishing and marginalizing another (Christianity).” Tammy Bruce

A preference for the Muslim faith

President Obama likes the music if not the words

Tammy Bruce, The Washington Times, March 16, 2015, p. 31

Over the years it’s been disturbing to see an increased effort by the federal government to punish and marginalize Christianity. After all, we know the separation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from establishing an official state religion; it’s not about eliminating faith from the public square. And yet if you were to look at federal actions since Barack Obama became president, there is a certain trend of promoting and embracing one religion (Islam) while punishing and marginalizing another (Christianity).

This week, as an example, we learned from the Daily Caller that an Islamist imam based in Pennsylvania, Egyptian-born Fouad ElBayly, who called for the death of activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has received two contracts from the federal government to teach “guidance and leadership” to Muslims in prison.

That’s right. A man who called for the death of a woman for speaking her mind about Islam has received almost $13,000 in tax dollars to “teach” other Muslims in prison. There are numerous Muslims in this country who have not only not called for the death of anyone, but reject Mr. ElBayly’s sort of tripe. Yet they have not been embraced by the federal government and given a paid forum with which to influence a group especially vulnerable to Islamic radicalization.

Strange, no? Continue reading

Defining Marriage

“In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a law defining marriage for the purposes of federal programs as the union of a man and a woman.” National Review

National Review, March 9, 2015, p. 6

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a law defining mar­riage for the purposes of federal programs as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, did not bother to specify what part of the Constitution the law violated. Lower federal courts took the decision as their cue to start inval­idating state marriage laws as well. A federal judge in Alabama has just done so. The chief justice of the state supreme court, Roy Moore, said that the ruling did not bind state officials handing out marriage licenses. The judge has been widely con­demned for disobeying the supremacy clause of the Consti­tution, which puts federal law above state law; his defenders note that the Supreme Court has never said this clause makes the decisions of lower federal courts binding on state officials. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a case about the constitutionality of traditional marriage laws. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took it upon herself to pronounce that the country is ready for same-sex marriage to become the constitu­tional rule. Almost nobody raised an eyebrow. We already knew which way she leans on the question. We already knew that the process by .which same-sex marriage is triumphing in the courts has nothing to do with the impartial application of law. Apparently it is no longer necessary even to go through the motions of pretending that it does. Spare Judge Moore, and the rest of us, any lectures about the majesty of the law.