From Mike Huckabee:
Harvard Law School has dropped Ronald Sullivan Jr. from his role as dean of a residential house after he joined Harvey Weinstein's legal defense team. Sullivan and his wife were the first black faculty deans in Harvard history. But after he agreed to defend Weinstein, some students protested, demanded he be fired or dropped as dean, and scrawled anti-Sullivan graffiti on a building. (You’d think the vandals would be the ones who would be punished, but at Harvard these days, crimes against PC group-think outweigh real crimes.)
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz is among many legal experts who are blasting Harvard. Dershowitz calls the punishment of Sullivan for defending an unpopular client “the new McCarthyism.” He also shot down the now-common complaint from students that having to be around someone who says or does something they disagree with makes them “feel unsafe.” Dershowitz said, “Any student who feels 'unsafe' in the presence of Dean Sullivan and his wife does not belong at a university.” (Frankly, I suspect a lot of university students these days are so immature, they don’t yet belong in a kindergarten class.)
He added, “If the students who demanded the firing of Sullivan had been around in 1776, John Adams would have been fired as an author of the Declaration because he made them feel unsafe for representing the Brits accused of the Boston Massacre. Shame on these student McCarthyites.” (I agree with Prof. Dershowitz, but I implore him not to give them any ideas about attacking John Adams. They have enough history to erase already: https://freebeacon.com/blog/tear-every-statue-every-president/ )
It’s easy for the public to get angry at attorneys who seem to be defending the indefensible, but our system requires that everyone who’s accused be allowed a defense. Some who seem really guilty or have allegedly done something that makes them a pariah might find that their attorney is their only defender. That doesn’t necessarily mean the attorney approves of the client. It’s one of those dirty jobs that somebody has to do, and as irritating as some lawyers are, if you’re ever in the position of needing one – particularly if everyone assumes you’re guilty when you know you aren’t - you’ll quickly develop an appreciation for due process rights.
Harvard is supposed to be the gold standard for a legal education. But if the people running it now can’t even comprehend the basic, foundational right of every American, regardless of who they are or what they’re accused of, to have the best defense possible – and that you shouldn’t punish attorneys simply for doing their job – then the students might as well get a mail order law degree from Tijuana. It would be faster, a lot cheaper, and probably mean just as much.
There's yet another example of Twitter’s infamous “algorithm” locking the account of someone who was accused of “hateful conduct” simply for expressing an informed opinion that didn’t line up with the rigid standards of a PC identity victim group. In this case, psychologist Ray Blanchard was accused of being hateful and threatening to transgender people because he posted some of the findings he has compiled about that subject as a renowned expert who has done decades of research in the field. Those findings include that “transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder,” that sex change surgery should not be considered until a patient is at least 21 years old, and that the sex of a post-operative transsexual should be “analogous to a legal fiction,” which would allow it to be changed on some things, such as a driver’s license, but not others, such as competing in “sports competition as one’s adopted sex.”
Those used to be considered uncontroversial statements, and coming from Dr. Blanchard, they would have been called expert opinions, but now, they’re “hate speech.” Or at least, they were until Twitter received a massive amount of blowback, apologized and unlocked Blachard’s account.
As more and more transgender females demand to compete in sports against girls, anger and resentment are growing at how they are winning all the top prizes thanks to the natural physical advantages of having developed as male since conception (yes, development begins in the womb, another “controversial” inarguable fact.) To the transgender movement, and the liberal school administrators who champion it, this is being hailed as a great breakthrough for “trans rights.” But as I’ve warned for a long time, it’s actually trampling on the rights of girls, destroying their dreams of winning sports awards and scholarships, and making them believe that all their hard work is for nothing, that life is unfair and it’s impossible for them ever to win.
Think that’s overstating the case? Read this…
These girls are in Connecticut, one of 17 states that allow transgender athletes to compete with no restrictions, and female athletes are watching their life-long dreams go down the (non-gender-specific) toilet because bigger, stronger, faster males who identify as female keep entering their competitions and smashing them like the Hulk.
Because Connecticut is so liberal and so PC, and there’s so much shaming of anyone who dares to criticize (funny how “shaming” is such a bad thing in every instance, except when it’s leftists shaming you) that the girls who are getting crushed and their parents who are watching them suffer are too frightened to speak up and say anything. They fear being called hateful or transphobic, which they know they aren’t, but they’re tired of watching their daughters being made to feel hopeless and defeated, and told they’re not allowed to say anything about it because it might hurt someone’s feelings. What about these girls’ feelings?
Well, take a lesson from what happened with Dr. Blanchard. Twitter’s attempt to lock him out was obviously a ridiculous attempt to make political correctness trump medical science, common sense and basic biology, and when enough people raised heck about it, they backed down. Parents in Connecticut and other liberal states that are forcing this on your children: wake up and realize the connection between the people you vote for and the insane policies they're imposing on your and your families. There is a remedy for that. It's called a "ballot."
There are already rumblings that Americans are getting sick of being bullied into silence. And the powers that be are starting to feel the heat and realize the limits of their power. Case in point…
This kind of bullying politicization of gender is also harming boys. Like the case of the teacher who took it upon herself to decide that a 9-year-old boy might be “transgender,” and pushed him so hard about it without telling his parents that he ended up confused, anxiety-ridden and traumatized.
It's time that Americans started standing up to protect the rights of women and girls and to defend common sense. This can be done without attacking or insulting anyone. If someone wants to create their own reality, as Shirley MacLaine used to put it, they are free to do so. But there is no right to demand that everyone else play along with their version of reality and accommodate it at the expense of their own children’s futures.
Some conservative pundits think President Trump is jumping the gun by giving his potential Democratic opponents derogatory nicknames so early (“Sleepy Joe” Biden, “Pocahontas” Warren, etc.) They think for maximum impact, he should strive for being “presidential,” let the other side fight until only one is left bleeding but standing, and then apply a nickname (I don’t suggest “Bloody.”) But Trump seems to enjoy it too much to wait, or else he’s a genius at trolling, using his opponents’ reactions to being called a silly name to expose things about them that battalions of PR handlers are desperately trying to prevent the public from seeing, and sinking them early.
For instance, when Trump offhandedly referred to liberal media flavor-of-the-month Pete Buttigieg as “Alfred E. Neuman,” Buttigieg could have ignored it or laughed it off, but instead, he did the worst thing he could've done: he tried to sound hip by claiming ignorance, saying, “I’ll be honest. I had to Google that. I guess it’s just a generational thing. I didn’t get the reference.”
Okay, let’s break down all the many things wrong with that. First, it insults people because of their age, when older Americans are the most consistent voters. Second, ignorance isn’t a great trait to claim when you’re trying to convince people to make you President. Third, nobody really believes he’s never heard of Alfred E. Neuman. The character had been around for decades when MAD adopted and named him in the mid-‘50s. He’s appeared on nearly every MAD magazine cover and in thousands of other venues right up to today, when MAD still has a monthly circulation of 140,000 (40,000 more than Newsweek.) So Pete either has to be REALLY ignorant or he’s lying to us. Again, neither is a good argument for making someone President.
If he meant it to make him sound cool, that was also a miscalculation. To quote the motto of the 1960s comedy troupe The Credibility Gap, “Ignorance of your culture is not considered cool” (although if he claimed not to know that reference, I’d believe him.)
Finally, another bad thing about his answer is that even if we take his claim of ignorance on face value, how could anyone vote for someone for President who doesn’t know MAD magazine? MAD has been the gateway to a sense of humor for generations of kids. Does he have no sense of humor? Besides, if he knew MAD, he might thank them for spending the past couple of years savagely mocking Donald Trump.
TV writer Bill Oakley declared on Twitter, “I wrote my Magna Cum Laude thesis at Harvard University about the death of E.C. Comics and the birth of MAD Magazine and if you are not familiar with the name Alfred E. Neuman, you are un-American, it’s like not knowing the name Mark Twain.”
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I will grant that MAD’s editors had the best response on Twitter (Yes, MAD is on Twitter! Imagine that! And thanks to Trump, they’re trending.) MAD tweeted, “Who’s Pete Buttigieg? Must be a generational thing.” They also changed their profile to read, “Historic comedy institution with Mayor Pete on the cover.”
In short, it would have been better if he’d just responded to the nickname question with, “What?…Me worry?”
In conclusion, I’ll offer Buttigieg a little unsolicited advice. If you’re going to run for President, you’ll get asked a lot of stupid questions. You might want to start reading MAD to learn how to be ready with a snappy answer.
From Laura Ainsworth:
Laura Ainsworth answers reader Jim on our FBI/special counsel reporting
This week’s stories generated so many letters that it’s been challenging to go through them all. But my staff writer Laura Ainsworth wanted to take time to personally answer this one from Jim, because he is skeptical of our reports on the intelligence community. Jim also believes Trump needs to turn over his tax returns and, I’m guessing, whatever Congress wants, so they can dig deep and find whatever-it-is he is hiding. (Consider Laura's response an answer to reader Gene as well, who doubts our sources and used the term “hot air” for what he considered a non-story.)
First, here’s the letter from Jim:
When the reports are published [of FBI abuse of the FISA process] please share them here so we can all read. Until then it didn’t happen and if it does come out I’m happy to consider what they say and to ask that justice be done.
By that token you should be happy to see and review the entire Mueller report and President Trump’s tax returns and to allow all those subpoenaed to testify.
See the big difference here is I am very willing to see all (factual) information and prosecute accordingly even it makes my people look bad or your people look good.
Notice you don’t see me calling for the release of this to be blocked whereas you do for your “team”
It is not that you voted for Trump that fundamentally makes you and like-minded people dangerous for the country it is that you fundamentally want, for the protection of your guy, to remove aspects of the balance of power.
And here is the real bombshell. What you are fighting for would also give Democrats unchecked power the next time they are in office. I DON’T WANT THAT but you seem to be fine with that which is strange.
OR you only want it JUST for your guy which is flat out undemocratic?
So answer this simple question - are you for eventually giving unprecedented power to the Democrats or for just limiting that power to just the Republicans?
Jim, I don’t think you understand. You really have it so wrong that it’s hard to know where to start. Gov. Huckabee and his crew are not partisan hacks and want the truth to come out, whatever it turns out to be. If there is any “big difference,” it is that Democrats (and even some anti-Trump Republicans) seem to want the investigation of Trump to continue virtually WITHOUT END, and we think that if Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors could possibly have made a case (even on obstruction), they would have by now. Trump won the election, he is President, and there are some really pivotal things going on in the world and inside our country right now that need his undivided attention.
Democrats in Congress will NEVER let this go. As I see it, they're the ones who don't care about "balance of power," because they and their constituents hate the person in the White House so much that they will do whatever is necessary to extricate him. The call to hold AG Barr in contempt of Congress is ludicrous; he has been much more forthcoming than he was required to be; all but a miniscule portion of the unredacted Mueller report is available to them right now, and at this writing they haven’t even looked at it. Grand jury testimony is, by law, supposed to remain sealed, and for good reason. The change of rules to use staff attorneys to interrogate Barr was thrown in at the last minute to make their “witch hunt” (and it clearly is one) look as much like an impeachment as possible, when after almost two years no case can be made for a conspiracy with a foreign power (at least on Trump’s part). In this game of chess, their strategy is transparent, as It was inevitably going to go in one of two ways: either they would move a square and get an “inquisition” of Barr on TV, or they would move another square and vote to find him in contempt.
Trump did nothing to impede Mueller in any way. (It wouldn’t be “obstruction” unless Mueller had actually been fired or otherwise interfered with.) Congress doesn’t need more testimony from Trump’s people; that's been exhausted. Recall that Donald Trump, Jr., has already testified for the special counsel. The President even had his own attorney testify for Mueller's team for almost 30 hours. Talk about “unprecedented.”
The truth is that the very day Trump was elected President, Democrats (in their shock) decided to pursue impeachment, and ever since, they’ve been looking for something --- anything they can find --- with which to do it. This will not stop. And they are the ones who don't care what it does to the Constitution. Since when is it the LEFT that cares about the Constitution?
Most of what we report here is deliberately ignored by major media, except for FOX News and some conservative sites (or in outstanding opinion columns carried by more mainstream sites). We take care in our reporting and consider our sources to be top-notch. Unlike CNN and MSNBC and other major news sources that have made mistake after mistake and mixed hard-news “journalism” with vitriolic opinion to the point where there’s no longer any perceivable difference, we have NEVER had to retract ANYTHING of significance from any story we have written. We fully expect the truth of what we've been reporting to be confirmed in spades in the coming weeks and months.
If we are shown to be wrong, we will be the first to issue an apology and correction. On the other hand, if those anti-Trump sites are wrong, we won’t be holding our breath for apologies and corrections from them. They typically don't admit they’re wrong; they just “move on.”
A few more things, Jim: First (and in answer to your final question), we see the Democrats as already DOING the things you accuse Republicans of setting the stage for; namely, trying to take unchecked, “unprecedented” power and turning their backs on evidence being destroyed or hidden (by Hillary and, it certainly appears, some in the FBI). Second, this is an opinion site, and if we think wrongdoing has occurred, we are going to say so. Third, again, we stand by our sources and our own research. And, last, when we finally get the definitive report on FISA abuse by the FBI, yes, we will gladly share it.
If after all this I still haven't convinced you that you have a few things backwards, please watch the most recent episode (Sunday, May 12) of FOX News' "Life, Liberty & Levin," ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE LAST SENTENCE. If you really do want the full picture, you'll be glad you did.