Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

“Uncle Bills”?

I absolutely love this new term from Rush:

John Lewis and Charlie Rangel throw Barack Obama overboard. They’re Uncle Bills: Uncle Toms who sell out Obama for their white master, Bill Clinton.

 Add the founder of BET to the list of “Uncle Bills”, too.

January 16, 2008 Posted by | bigotry, Bill Clinton, Obama | 5 Comments

MSM blames homeschooling on DC kids’ murders

Obviously, the fault could not lie with the murderous psycho mother.  Nope, culpability falls solely on the shoulders of homeschooling.  From WSJ:

Four girls in the District of Columbia were allegedly murdered last year, and a New York Times1 news story suggests the root cause is . . . home schooling? Here’s how the report begins:

Ten states and the District of Columbia, where Banita M. Jacks was charged on Thursday with four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her four daughters, have no regulations regarding home schooling, not even the requirement that families notify the authorities that they are educating their children at home.

The lack of supervision of the home-schooling process, some experts say (always the ambiguous “some say”, with no references or quotes from those who “say” – Ed.), may have made it easier last year for Ms. Jacks to withdraw her children from school and the prying eyes of teachers, social workers and other professionals who otherwise might have detected signs of abuse and neglect of the girls.

Instead, the children, ages 5 to 17, slipped through the cracks in multiple systems, including social services, education and law enforcement. Their decomposed bodies were discovered earlier this week by United States marshals serving eviction papers on the troubled family.

The absence of any home-schooling regulations in Washington is largely the result of advocacy and litigation by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The report goes on to concede that “for sure, the fact that Ms. Jacks’s children last attended school in March in no way accounts for their deaths.” The home-schooling link looks even more tenuous when you look at the Washington Post2 account of the case. On Sunday, the Post reports, Mayor Adrian Fenty fired six child-welfare workers, saying they “just didn’t do their job.” It turns out that the girls’ absence from school was noted at the time:

The girls were killed sometime in late spring or summer, authorities believe. But they were alive when a school social worker, with growing alarm, tried to get child welfare workers to look in on the family. …

“From what I could see, the home did not appear clean,” the social worker, Kathy Lopes, said in a call to police April 30. “The children did not appear clean, and it seems that the mother is suffering from some mental illness and she is holding all of the children in the home hostage.”

Lopes first visited the Jacks home April 27, after Brittany Jacks, 16, missed 33 days of school and no one answered a phone at the house.

“The parent was home. She wouldn’t open the door, but we saw young children inside the house,” Lopes said to a hotline worker at the city’s Child and Family Services Agency. “Her oldest daughter, who is our student, was at home. She wouldn’t let us see her.”

The operator took the information and reminded Lopes, who was clearly distraught that she could not talk to Brittany, that Jacks did not have to let her inside the home. . . .

Although a social worker made at least two visits to Jacks’s home, in the 4200 block of Sixth Street SE, no one answered the door to the rowhouse either time. Less than three weeks later, Child and Family Services staff members closed the case after receiving an unconfirmed report that the family had moved to Maryland.

The Post also has a timeline3 of Jacks’s contacts with various city agencies–five of them in all. It does appear as if Lopes, the school social worker, was the only bureaucrat who took any real interest in the girls’ well-being. But this was true even under the district’s laissez-faire regime for home schooling, and it’s hard to see how the sort of regulations the Times reporter implicitly advocates would have helped.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s assume that stricter home-schooling regulations would have some beneficial impact in terms of protecting children from abuse. This would come at the cost of burdening thousands of legitimate home-schooling families, the overwhelming majority of which are not abusive, by intruding into their very homes.

Whether this trade-off would be worth it is a legitimate topic for debate. But it’s worth noting that the Times usually has little patience for those who value safety over privacy, as, for example, in the case of wiretapping terrorists. Are home schoolers more of a menace than al Qaeda?

In the eyes of the MSM, yes…homeschoolers are more of a menace than al Qaeda.  Note to self: Let that lady across the street who homeschools her kids know that I’m on to her murderous scheme.  Go ahead and hail my heroism now, my friends.

Nope, no liberal media bias!

January 16, 2008 Posted by | big government, media bias, public education | 5 Comments

ACLU: Public bathroom stall sex is “private”

Just when I thought that the ACLU (A$$holes, Commies, and Leftists United) couldn’t get any more depraved than they were, they prove me wrong.  I really don’t know why I’m shocked, considering that these reprobates argued that we have a constitutional right to kiddie p0rn.  Anywho, from the AP:

In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”  (Leave it to Minnesota to find this to be a “right”! – Ed.)

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn’t be illegal.

“The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,” the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.  (And other people in the public bathroom expect to not have to deal with hearing or seeing people having sex while they’re in the john! What about THEIR expectations, ACLU? – Ed.)

Got that?  If Junior has to go to the little boy’s room to tinkle, and two people are going at it in a bathroom stall next to him, he just needs to “man up” and deal with it.  Thanks for the clarification, ACLU.

I don’t care if the stall occupants are of the same or different genders.  There is a definite compelling government interest to prohibit people from boinking in public places…period.  Public restrooms are made for washing up or relieving yourself of bodily waste…and nothing else!  Get a hotel room, you pervs.

January 16, 2008 Posted by | ACLU, Larry Craig | 5 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers