Author: Papa Giorgio

Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration (Prager | Zmirak)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the full interview… followed by links to the topical breakdown of it:

Dennis Prager interviews John Zmirak, who is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration.” This was quite an interview. I will be splitting some of this up into topical segments in a bit. But Mr. Zmirak is a guy I would love to sit and have a beer with (a few of em’).

Here are the edited portions:

 

Be Intellectually Honest – Who’s Position Is Radical?

Published by Papa Giorgio

With his usual insightful quips, Dennis Prager weaves his way through the control of language the Left/media seems to enjoy. A good short section as well discussing who is the radical regarding definitions and marriage. See my post for more details: “No Religious Or Ethical Leader In History Supported Same-Sex Marriage“

Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro Discuss Brett Kavanaugh (SCOTUS)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ben Shapiro was on the Glenn Beck Show discussing the possibilities of Brett Kavanaugh sliding Left or Right. Ben seems to think he will be closer to Alito rather than be another Roberts. Which is good. The best woman was not chosen, but Trump may have another go at it this term! At any rate, now that reality has set-in, you get to hear the real Ben Shapiro.

Should The Conservative Justices Be Wearing Hoods?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Campus Reform has an oft played video where students are asked about a non-existent Supreme Court pick (VIDEO). Michael Medved played the whole thing, but this was the part where Michael’s historical mind comes into play. Great nugget for a response to clueless SJWs! See more at Church Militant: “The Anti-Catholic History of the KKK“

Media Madness BEFORE President Trump’s SCOTUS Choice

Published by Papa Giorgio

Michael Medved discusses the nomination of Trump’s Supreme Court choice BEFORE Trump announced who it is (was, see my post on Kavanaugh). The media madness is just but a taste of what we are in for. And the horrible understanding of what the Court does is evident in the first caller’s concern. The second caller brings up a statement made by “candidate” Trump that was unfortunate, and that he later repudiated.

Here is Nina “HIV” Totenberg joining the misdirection:

  • “On Sunday’s MSNBC Live, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg again showed her blatant double standard in being quick to label conservative justices as ‘very conservative’ but painting liberal justices as being more ‘centrist’.” (NEWSBUSTERS)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruled Against Marquette University (YAY!)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(UPDATED ARTICLE)

An update to an old case from NATIONAL REVIEW (h-t ELDER STATEMENT):

…In a stinging 63-page ruling, the court held that Marquette University violated its own faculty handbook when it effectively terminated professor John McAdams for writing a blog post criticizing a graduate student instructor’s attempts to silence debate about gay rights in her ethics class.

The facts of the case are relatively simple. In late 2014, a student approached Professor McAdams and told him that his instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, had “listed a number of issues on the board” — including “gay rights” — and then said, “Everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

After class, the student approached the instructor and attempted to engage her in a discussion about gay marriage. After an initially appropriate exchange, the instructor shut down the discussion, saying that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments” and “in this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then “invited the student to drop the class.”….

Here are three older uploads regarding the issue above, newest to oldest:

Dennis Prager gives us a quick update to Professor John McAdams story.

For background on this, see my posts on the matter:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has called for McAdams’s reinstatement in light of Marquette’s egregious violations of his rights.

  • “If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “While this is more than likely just an excuse to get rid of McAdams, the fact that McAdams’s supposed offense was criticizing a teacher for squelching dissenting opinions in class only makes Marquette’s utter contempt for dissenters more obvious.” (F.I.R.E.)

See more at Marquette Warrior Blog.

Dennis Prager interviews a tenured Professor John McAdams from Marquette University… a Jesuit [Catholic] University. He recounts a student being told — essentially — that any in-class discussion of same-sex marriage is akin to bigotry and intolerance.

The Professor has a blog entitled “MARQUETTE WARRIOR” where he recounts this issue. Of course it was picked up by other sites as well, for instance, BREITART, as well as on national radio (listen herein).

The irony is that this is suppose to be a religious institution and a place for higher learning. In all the philosophy classes I have been in I have never had the right NOT to be offended when talk of my Christian faith comes into class discussion. Nor would I want or force people to accept the claims of my faith “in situ.”

Challenge and freedom of thought IS a corner stone of any healthy society. We see what barbaric societies do to try and intolerantly make another civilized society tolerant (speaking here of Charlie Hebdo).

If, in a philosophy or ethics class, or a political science class subjects are untouchable… is this not an intolerant form of governance on the university level? Where thinking outside of boxes or freedom of expression and thought are suppose to be paramount? It turns out the university is the most “unfree” place in America — the opposite of its goal I think:

This is a sad-sad story.

Brett Kavanaugh

Published by Papa Giorgio

I think it was Prager or Elder… but they were saying that it is only Justices put on the court by Republicans that slide Left. A Justice put on the court by a Democrat typically stays reliably Left. So, I am worried about Kavanaugh. Mark Levin doesn’t like him. Neither does Ben Shapiro. But these two, while right on on a lot of things, are not my favorite shot-callers. NATIONAL REVIEW has a good response to Shapiro.

Here are some headlines that make me happy (from NEWSBUSTERS):

  • ABC Knocks Kavanaugh as ‘Not a Slam Dunk’ Will Cause ‘Battle Royale’
  • MSNBC Immediately Freaks Over ‘Right-Wing,’ ‘Conservative’ Kavanaugh
  • CNN Host Badgers Trump SCOTUS Adviser, Picking ‘Right-Wing Extremists’
  • Celebrities, Media Melt Down Over ‘Cruelly Regressive’ Brett Kavanaugh

However, Trump seems to be on a roll… so why should I doubt his pick before taking seminal cases on the Court?

THERE IS GOOD NEWS… here are some Tweets via LEGAL INSURRECTION and RIGHT SCOOP:

POWERLINE still has reservations like we all do:

…Kavanaugh is well-known in D.C. legal circles. There’s wide agreement among the people I know who know him that, in terms of judicial philosophy and temperament, he falls somewhere between Chief Justice Roberts and the late Justice Scalia. Some say he’s closer to Roberts. Others say he’s closer to Scalia.

Either way, Kananaugh will make a good Justice, if confirmed, though I hope the folks who say he’s closer to Scalia are right….

The FEDERALIST makes us think twice as well!

BREITBART however notes the solid reasoning that most likely pushed Trump in Kavanaugh’s direction:

…But it is Kavanaugh’s consistent rulings on immigration, the central issue of Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, that set him apart from the other top candidates for the Supreme Court. Always referring to illegal immigrants as such, he explicitly sided with American workers in his major immigration opinions. “[A]n illegal immigrant worker is not a lawful ’employee’ in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent in which he would have excluded illegally employed aliens from American union elections.

In 2014, another Kavanaugh dissent, Fogo de Chao v. Department of Homeland Security, expounded an understanding that American immigration laws exist to protect American workers and rejecting the “jobs Americans won’t do” ideology of open-border groups and the pro-cheap-labor business lobby:

But the “Americans can’t learn to cook” proposition is a factually unsupported stereotype that finds no home in the specialized knowledge visa program. And the “Americans won’t cook” proposition in the end is just an economic argument.

Like other restaurants, Fogo de Chao must compete in the chef market by offering better wages or benefits to attract quality chefs. Fogo de Chao undoubtedly would save money if it could simply import experienced Brazilian chefs rather than hiring and training only American chefs to cook at its steakhouses here in the United States.

These attitudes helped Kavanaugh rack up the support of advocates for America’s “forgotten men and women” like Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance and conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter. White House Counsel Don McGhan, the president’s most senior lawyer, also reportedly pushed Kavanaugh as his favorite among the president’s shortlist.

As Loyola University Maryland political science professor Jesse Merriam put it Friday in a Real Clear Politics op-ed, “Judge Kavanaugh is the only candidate with a demonstrated legal understanding of the political issues that inspired millions of forgotten Americans to come out to the polls and vote for Donald Trump. Judge Kavanaugh is the America First choice.”……